> As a user I would like it if Debian had a policy on the location of the
> 'Additional documentation' that is supplied in the -doc packages as
> per Section 6.3 of policy-manual 3.0.0.0. Many -doc packages place the
> actual documentation in the base package's /usr/{share/}doc/
> directory while
Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would suggest what several packages already do: install the docs in
> /usr/doc/pkg and have /usr/doc/pkg-doc as a symlink to /usr/doc/pkg.
That only works if the pkg-doc package depends on pkg, which isn't
alway necessary or desirable.
--
Chris Water
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 03:01:58AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > It's a lot of
> > overhead for packages with close-to-nothing in /usr(/share)?/doc.
> Then those packages are welcome to stay in /usr/doc, if complying with the
> transition strategy irks the maintainer too
> Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I would suggest what several packages already do: install the docs in
> > /usr/doc/pkg and have /usr/doc/pkg-doc as a symlink to /usr/doc/pkg.
>
> That only works if the pkg-doc package depends on pkg, which isn't
> alway necessary or desirable.
On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 07:00:55AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I would suggest what several packages already do: install the docs in
> > > /usr/doc/pkg and have /usr/doc/pkg-doc as a symlink to /usr/doc/pkg.
> > That only works if the pkg-doc pack
> On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 07:00:55AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > I would suggest what several packages already do: install the docs in
> > > > /usr/doc/pkg and have /usr/doc/pkg-doc as a symlink to /usr/doc/pkg.
> > > That only works if the pk
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> (*) Policy is *supposed* to be a formulation of existing practice.
Raul> If everybody agrees, the technical committee doesn't need to get
Raul> involved.
How can evolutionalry changes be then ratified into policy? I
unders
Hi,
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> Then those packages are welcome to stay in /usr/doc, if
Anthony> complying with the transition strategy irks the maintainer
Anthony> too much. When policy changes, they'll just have to be
Anthony> prepared to move more or less immediately, wit
On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 02:22:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
> Anthony> Then those packages are welcome to stay in /usr/doc, if
> Anthony> complying with the transition strategy irks the maintainer
> Anthony> too much. When policy changes, they'
In my opinion, yes. All debian packages with executables should have
as many man pages as there are executables. That's policy. In my opinion,
all file formats introduced by a package should have a man page in
section 5 which completely describes the format.
Write the man page with a description
> >>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Raul> (*) Policy is *supposed* to be a formulation of existing
> Raul> practice. If everybody agrees, the technical committee doesn't
> Raul> need to get involved.
On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 02:28:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
On 28 Aug 1999, Chris Waters wrote:
> Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I would suggest what several packages already do: install the docs in
> > /usr/doc/pkg and have /usr/doc/pkg-doc as a symlink to /usr/doc/pkg.
>
> That only works if the pkg-doc package depends on pkg, which is
On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 06:08:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Let me put it yet another way. We should be willing to add a lintian
> check for any additions to policy, and file severity: normal bug reports
> for every package in violation. (Which isn't to say we actually *should*,
> but we shoul
On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 04:52:59PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 06:08:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Let me put it yet another way. We should be willing to add a lintian
> > check for any additions to policy, and file severity: normal bug reports
> > for every pack
On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 04:52:59PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> I think that does not make sense at all.
>
> Current practice is a good guidance for the policy process, but being
> strictly bound to it renders the policy group useless because we had
> no chance to make real, innovative progress
On Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 01:57:51AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Consider something like: ``Your package has /usr/doc/copyright/package
> instead of /usr/doc/package/copyright''. That almost certainly doesn't
> cause a problem with the package itself. And the copyright is included,
> and it doesn't
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> And maybe I don't. Perhaps you have a specific example in mind?
I am still trying to clarify what would be the accepted means
of changing the policy from initially saying one thing (/usr/doc) and
then, at a later date, sayi
On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 12:00:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[much deleted]
> I see. Is the above a reasonable facsimile of what you are
> talking about?
Yes. What you're thinking is pretty close to what I'm thinking.
[Most of the text of your letter is the sort of stuff that I thi
On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 12:09:27PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> Then again, if you want to change the source format, and policy is
> ratified which results in source format being unusable during some
> transition period, that's wrong.
Of course this is wrong. The question is under which circumst
On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 07:44:27PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> However, I see there are two places in the policy manual which back up my
> point. Both are in section 2.4.1:
>
> "When the standards change in a way that
> requires every package to change the major number will be changed."
>
>
On Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 01:57:51AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > I don't see why the second shall be better than the first.
>
> In this example, specifically saying "Either could be used" warns tool
> writers that they shouldn't expect to be able to deal with the whole
> Debian archive if the
On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 02:11:21PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> I hope you don't mean that you think the current /usr/doc ->
> /usr/share/doc breakage is appropriate or necessary.
I consider this discussion decoupled from this particular issue. (My opinion
about the transition of /usr/doc -> /us
On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 07:59:50PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Whereas you and Raul seem to suggest (please correct me if I am wrong):
>
> 1. Make informal decision about something OR make decision and change policy
> to allow old and new way.
> 2. Wait until enough packages follow the new wa
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Suppose policy statres all packages must do AA. We decide that
> in the long run, all packlages must do, instead, BB.
> 1) The policy should not just be changed to say BB instead of AA,
>since that would make all previously conf
On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 08:01:40AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Sombody wrote this, but I don't recall who:
> > /usr/doc/pkg-doc/copyright = /usr/doc/pkg/copyright; so either pkg-doc
> > doesn't have a copyright if pkg isn't installed, or pkg-doc and pkg have
> > the same file included in both pac
25 matches
Mail list logo
