> > > > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 03:14:07AM +0300, Eray Ozkural wrote: > > > /usr/share/rfc/ > > > > > > Makes more sense to me. I don't see a problem with the package name. > > > > /usr/share/doc/rfc is much better. You don't need an rfc package for that. > > Look at the doc-linux-html package... > > Except that a package named doc-rfc will already have files in > /usr/share/doc/doc-rfc (copyright and so forth), and so having others in > /usr/share/doc/rfc is a little weird and unexpected.
For you. Not for me. And I can't think why it would be for the users. > The /usr/(share/)doc/HOWTO hierarchy has a bit of history to it.
