Drake Diedrich writes: > Perhaps the policy could be > amended to either permit /usr/doc/source-package or suggest putting in > symlinks from /usr/doc/binary-package to the common > /usr/doc/source-package (as already done by tetex, libc6, several -dev and > lib*g, and xemacs20).
Something to keep in mind with putting copyright in /usr/doc/source-package without links will be that some binary packages may have eg. a different licence than the other parts. Then it would need to be specified as a default dir where to find doc. However, a problem with using no links to doc/source-package/ will be with binary packages whose names differ too much from its source package. But my original purpose was just trying to avoid those nasty "g"'s in /usr/doc/. I see there's no simple way of doing this because of the needs of automation, so I think it should not be done as I did till now (ie. using doc/comerr2/ for package comerr2g). I now think that the policy itself should not be changed in this respect, but it may be a good idea to add a recommendation about the use of symlinks to allow duplication. -- Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Stop making M$-Bill richer & richer, alt-email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | support Debian GNU/Linux: debian-email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | more powerful, more stable ! http://www.a2points.com/homepage/3475232 | Check <http://www.debian.org/>
