On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 07:54:58PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: > Additionally, we are all aware(I hope) about the naming > inconsistencies. Some call it -doc, some call it -docs. Then, some > place the documentation in -doc/, while others place it in foo/. Still > others place it in -doc/, and then have a symlink from foo/. > > All this leads to end-user confusion. What do I install to read about? > foo After I have *that* installed, where do I go to read about it? > /usr/share/doc/, but then where ? > > Also, there is the problem that some docs depend on their foo.deb, > others don't.
Packages should only Suggest their -doc counterparts, not Depend on it. Moreover, I think the general criterium adopted until now is to add a -doc pkg when documentation is very extended and/or in non-man and non-txt format (i.e. html/ps/pdf). Also, when documentation is distributed as a separate tarball by the upstream, and/or released asynchronously in respect with the source tarball, it's generally a good idea to release it as a separate package as well. Surely such kind of criteria can be easily added to policy as a suggested Nothing can be stated for documentation-only packages. About names: if we have /usr/share/doc and not /usr/share/docs, we should have -doc packages only for coherence. We have a pletora of -docs pkg, instead. More ideas? -- Francesco P. Lovergine
