Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva wrote: > I don't know if you're going to consider this a good explanantion, but these > points came to my mind: > > * It's not needed to have a doc-base entry for every haskell library, since > ghc6 library documentation links to them, and if there should be an entry in > doc-base for haskell libraries, it should be in ghc6. > > * We don't want to fill doc-base with a lot of haskell related entries: > > $ ls /usr/share/doc-base/ | wc -l > 89 > > In my whole system I have 89 doc-base entries. If I had a lot of installed > haskell libraries, all of them with a doc-base entry, I'd easily have more > doc-base entries for haskell libraries than for all other stuff. The same > goes > for perl, python and C. Libraries should not polute doc-base. > > * If this is going to be done for all haskell packages, it should be done in > haskell-devscripts, and not on a per package basis. > > This is why I don't use doc-base on my package. I don't like to see it in > another packages because it's good to have a strong group policy, and packages > following a standard, so that it's easy to work with all of them after you > learn the structure of one of them. > > What do you think about these points?
They make sense. I agree with them :-). I'll raise a bug against lintian so that it doesn't test for doc-base for packages named libghc6-*-doc. Erik -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
