Karl Eichwalder writes ("The /usr/doc Hierarchie"):
> Delete *.tex.gz from the lilo subdir (I think it's a good idea to have a
> DVI instead of the TeX files -- the Guidelines from dpkg-93.70 should be
> more specific concerning the allowed file formats (I vote for ASCII and
> DVI only).In general, documentation source should be in the source package. The /usr/doc directory can contain PostScript, DVI, ASCII, ASCII with overprint highlighting, &c. I don't think TeX source is appropriate; it is definitely inappropriate if no formatted version is provided. I'm not convinced that just providing DVI should be allowed, but then (a) I'm a TeX-hater and (b) providing ASCII or some other sensible format would probably be difficult. > Beside ./copyright, ./examples and ./debian-$(version) I would like to > see there the same directory structure as in the source resp. the > deb-file distribution: > > /usr/doc/base > /usr/doc/admin > /usr/doc/mail I disagree, strongly. It is important to be able to find things in /usr/doc, even if one is a naive user. Having to use (for example) `find' is unacceptable. One should not need to know how a package was installed when looking up its documentation - remember that the user is not always the sysadmin. Ian.
