Am 14.04.98 schrieb apharris # burrito.onshore.com ... Moin Adam!
APH> > * no problems with file names APH> Well you have a point there, possible conflict of namespace in the APH> /usr/share/... area. If the files had to be the package name, then APH> that would take care of that issue ;). Ok. APH> > * it#s easier to support /usr/local/doc, relative links APH> We are compelled by policy not to create files under /usr/local, which That#s right, but the user can create them! And maybe he installs and old version of a package under /usr/local. I don#t like absolute paths. APH> > * you can move a whole diretory (include documents and our file) APH> > without changing "our file". APH> Things would defineatly break (i.e., the database in /var would now be APH> out of sync, i.e., look in the wrong place). I#m talking about the package maintainer and not the user! And it will break nothing, because postinst/prerm would be created by tools like debstd or debhelper. APH> > * you could include the file very easy in a tar archive APH> What tar file? What's the point of shlepping around .dhelp or APH> .docbase or whatever files anyhow if they're not going to be APH> registered and noticed properly (i.e., no preinst). dhelp would notice them, if you rebuild the whole database as done during installation/updating dhelp. APH> install -d debian/tmp/usr/share/doc-base APH> in your rules file and all reasons boil down to that. Which I can APH> sympathize with, although it doesn't convince me. Where#s the advantage of an absolute path like /usr/share? cu, Marco -- Uni: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fido: 2:240/5202.15 Mailbox: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.tu-harburg.de/~semb2204/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
