[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Budde) writes: > Am 13.04.98 schrieb apharris # burrito.onshore.com ... > APH> It's going to be hard to agree on much if I can't bringing you around > APH> to agree on this, Marco. > > I would suggest the following: > > 1.) doc-base is called for the directories including our SUD file > in postinst and prerm scripts of each package > 2.) doc-base calls all index programs like dhelp/dwww, if the > file includes HTML documents > 3.) dhelp/dwww read the SUD file and write an index
Yes yes yes yes yes, you see the point of doc-base: to provide an infrastructure for document display (and conversion) systems to hook into. At last! [details of mythical and it's too late at night to think about document conversion ommitted] > APH> to putting files under /usr/doc/<pkg>: > APH> * users will be tempted to edit them directly (which is bad) > > Why should they? And if the edit this files, this is not a problem. > > I see a lot of advantages: > > * easier for the maintainer, I hate to create several directories > for only one file It's one bloody command! > * no problems with file names Well you have a point there, possible conflict of namespace in the /usr/share/... area. If the files had to be the package name, then that would take care of that issue ;). > * it#s easier to support /usr/local/doc, relative links We are compelled by policy not to create files under /usr/local, which see. Even if not, I don't understand this. > * you can move a whole diretory (include documents and our file) > without changing "our file". Things would defineatly break (i.e., the database in /var would now be out of sync, i.e., look in the wrong place). > * you could include the file very easy in a tar archive What tar file? What's the point of shlepping around .dhelp or .docbase or whatever files anyhow if they're not going to be registered and noticed properly (i.e., no preinst). > * maybe better, if you mount /usr/doc via NFS Not thought thru; NFS wouldn't necessarily work w/o the backing of the document indexing located in /var... I'm sorry, but all these reasons of things you want to do seem to me to be more reasons *not* to put files in /usr/doc, since moving the registration files around at random is surely going to start breaking things. > If your#re for example upstream and Debian maintainer of a HTML document, > you can ship "our file" in your tar archive. I don#t like files that have > to be installed in special directories. Well my feeling is that you don't like having to say install -d debian/tmp/usr/share/doc-base in your rules file and all reasons boil down to that. Which I can sympathize with, although it doesn't convince me. Anyone else have an opinion on the /usr/share/ vs. /usr/doc debate here? .....A. P. [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onShore.com/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
