On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 03:05:14PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 08:11:41PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > [I am only a by-stander in this discussion, but I have just a small > > technical point]. > > > > I would like to suggest an other naming convention that fit better with > > Debian practice: > > > > /usr/share/httpd/defaultdocumentroot/<package> > > > > i.e. putting the files in a common directory instead of clobbering the > > /usr/share/<package> namespace. > > > This is in line with how menu, reportbug and lintian provide similar > > facilities (/usr/lib/menu/<package>, /usr/share/bug/<package>, > > /usr/share/lintian/overrides/<overrides>). > > It is not, because there are packages named "menu", "bug", and "lintian" > to which these heirarchies correspond. There is only a virtual package > named "httpd"; if someone opted to create a real (though ill-advised) > package named httpd, there would be a namespace conflict.
While I agree with the conflict, there are ample precedents for this: /usr/share/doc /usr/share/locale /usr/share/man /usr/share/misc /usr/share/common-licenses /usr/share/i18n /usr/share/pixmaps /usr/share/miscfiles Just try for i in /usr/share/*; do test -d /usr/share/doc/`basename $i` || print $i; done Between risking namespace conflicts with file in packages that exist and namespace conflicts with packages that do not exist yet, I would choose the former. Also I used `httpd' but of course, if the policy create the need for, say, a httpd-common that provide basic infrastruture to enable it, that can be used instead. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here.
