[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: -doc subpackage Group tag

On lun, 2004-07-19 at 16:24 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Steven Pritchard (steve silug org) said: 
> > So should those packages be renamed to whatever-doc (or *-doc be
> > renamed to *-docs)?  Or maybe we should just make sure all of the
> > packages have a Provides: foo-doc[s] so getting the name wrong still
> > works (at least for apt).
> Frankly, I've been of the opinion that the docs should be
> merged into the main package, and can be installed with
> --excludedocs if people want that. I'm probably in the
> minority though (and the PHP manual makes this excessive. :) )

Sometimes docs are reference material and are quite useful even without
the associated binaries (think intranet documentation server).

I feel that's what the -manual (in apache-manual and in all jpp -manual
packages) intends  to convey.

Though I must also say the /usr/share/doc mess is really not adapted to
this usage (some packages install executable scripts in there for
christsake!). A root dedicated to cleanly laid-out html manuals would be
much better to export via http/ftp/nfs/cifs/whatever. That would be a
perfect way to start seeding /srv/ for example.


Nicolas Mailhot

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]