> Nicolás, my one concern: lets assume a user installs both mutt and > mutt-doc, and mutt-doc installs its docs into /usr/share/doc/mutt. > > User says to userself, "why is my /usr/share/doc so big?" A `du' later, > and the mutt docs are the culprit. User thinks to userself, "bummer, I > like mutt, but the only way to get rid of the documentation is to > uninstall the whole package. I guess I should delete the docs manually."
Unimportant.. users can't assume lots of wrong things... Besides, `rm'ing files without uninstalling packages should be considered an "advanced" thing (I tend to consider it as a *wrong* thing anyway). > *maybe* the whole concept is contrived; but two packages installing > files into /usr/share/doc/<one_package_name> seems to be begging for > trouble, somewhere. Storms? Mad dogs attacks? Time-space disruptions? > If, however, we support something like a Documentation: tag in the > control files, or say that all the mutt-doc style packages should > install their stuff into /usr/share/doc/mutt/doc -- then I could see how > this could be good. I too don't like `ls -ld *mutt*' in the doc > directory, just to see what might be appropriate, so I would like to see > a nice solution to this thing... :) It's an imperfect world, we should choose an option that, without being perfect, offers more benefits than the others... > In any event, this is not a formal objection to anything. :) That's something.. =)
