Dear Ben, Did you get an answer to this?
I've just noticed a change in behavior of dh_installdocs between debhelper compat 10 and 11. With compat 10, documents listed in debian/python-<package>-doc.docs (e.g. build/html) would get installed to /usr/share/doc/python-<package>-doc/ but with compat 11, they get installed to /usr/share/doc/python-<package>/. >From the dh_installdocs man page it appears dh_installdocs has some logic to auto-detect the main package, which can be overridden with the --doc-main-package option. I'd like to know if dh_installdocs' default is considered correct, or if I should be overriding it? Thanks. Christopher On 16 July 2017 at 05:54, Ben Finney <bign...@debian.org> wrote: > Howdy all, > > Where is the best location for library documentation of a Debian Python > library package? > > Debian Policy §12.3 says: > > […] installing the documentation into the documentation directory of > the main package is preferred since it is independent of the > packaging method and will be easier for users to find. > > This is clear enough where a library package ‘libfoo’ is the main > package. The documentation package ‘libfoo-doc’ can install the > documentation to ‘/usr/share/doc/libfoo/’. > > > With the split in Python runtime systems, though, there is commonly not > a single “main package”. Typically there are two, ‘python3-foo’ and > ‘python-foo’. > > The documentation package ‘python-foo-doc’ then has no one obvious place > to install the documentation: > > * Installing to ‘/usr/share/doc/python-foo-doc/’ is discouraged by the > above Policy section. I agree that is not necessarily an obvious place > for a user to look for ‘python3-foo’ documentation. > > * Installing to ‘/usr/share/doc/python-foo/’ or > ‘/usr/share/doc/python3-foo/’ is incorrect if the corresponding > library package is not installed. > > Compounding this is the fact we are (rightly, IMO) moving toward Python > 3 as the primary runtime, and discouraging new Python 2 packages. Is > ‘python3-foo’ then the “main package” by the Policy statement above? > > A symlink could be used, from ‘/usr/share/doc/libfoo-doc’ to > ‘/usr/share/doc/libfoo’. But that still runs into the problem of *which* > package should be assumed. > > And if the documentation package *only* is installed, where should it > install its documentation and symlinks? How should this be done to allow > the library packages to later be installed without changing the > documentation location? > > > I have looked at various documentation and can't see good guidance for a > “one obvious way” to resolve this. > > There is varying practice among packages, and anyway just because some > package does it a particular way doesn't mean I should copy that without > knowing whether it's a good idea. > > What to do? > > -- > \ “I put contact lenses in my dog's eyes. They had little | > `\ pictures of cats on them. Then I took one out and he ran around | > _o__) in circles.” —Steven Wright | > Ben Finney >
