On 05/22/2012 06:28 PM, Alexander Rødseth wrote: > Hi, > > Could it considered to be documentation for the "filesystem" package? > If that should be the case, "fhs" could be renamed "filesystem-docs" > by submitting a new package and requesting a delete+merge of the old > one. >
Interesting, I did not think of that. However, I do not believe that treating standard X, that system Y is applicable to, as part of Y's documentation package is elegant; instead, Y's documentation should merely reference X (as hier(7) does in the "CONFORMING TO" section). The reasoning is that system Z might also be applicable to X (inelegant, since there would exist a redundant copy of X), and more importantly, X is self-contained. That would mean that X should exist separately as a package, instead of being a component of Y-docs and Z-docs. I do not believe that this packaging infrastructure (pacman, official and unofficial repos, AUR) is well suited for offline content not pertaining to specific software, since the functionality is specifically targetted towards software packages. If my reasoning is sound, then a FHS package is outside the scope of this infrastructure. -Ruslan -- Ruslan Nabioullin [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
