On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 01:03:00AM -0500, Travis Crump wrote: > Question about false positives(/usr/share/doc/ directories that don't > correspond to a package): Are they a bug or is there nothing wrong with > them? On my system I have the following false positives: > > debian-reference-en, debian-reference-common: /usr/share/doc/Debian > doc-linux-text: /usr/share/doc/FAQ > doc-linux-text: /usr/share/doc/HOWTO > doc-debian: /usr/share/doc/debian
doc-linux-text and doc-debian are special cases, probably debian-reference-* too. I tried to formalize the upper-case rule for doc-linux-* on debian-policy in August 2000, but never got round to following through on the approving noises I got in response. > libecasound7: /usr/share/doc/ecasound > emu-tools: /usr/share/doc/emu-tools-0.9.4 > kpilot, kdebase-doc, korganizer, kdelibs3: /usr/share/doc/kde > kdebase-doc: /usr/share/doc/kdebase > e2fsprogs: /usr/share/doc/libcomerr2 > e2fsprogs: /usr/share/doc/libss2 > svgalibg1: /usr/share/doc/svgalib > tetex-base, tetex-doc: /usr/share/doc/texmf > libxine-dev: /usr/share/doc/xine I think those are generally convenience symlinks or the targets of convenience symlinks ...? > The only one that would cause 'problems' would be 'kde' which would > cause a lot of new stuff to be installed, but no real harm would be done > especially since I couldn't find any false negatives. The first four > and kde and kdebase and texmf appear intentional, but the others seem to > be cruft left over from when packages changed names. Should they have > been removed by package scripts at some point or were they left there on > purpose? They shouldn't have been removed by package scripts: since they appear in 'dpkg -S' output, they're still first-class members of the .deb, not just random directories mkdired by a postinst script at some point. I'm not sure if they should be removed or not, though. -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
