Re: PLEASE: standard package README file/orientation
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 12:49:42 +1000, Anand Kumria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: README.Debian exists in the package(s) which have made substainial changes to how the package operates. If it exists it contains important information that the maintainer wanted you to read. However, Debian's apache comes configured to hide README files. Thus, http://host/doc/package/README.Debian is hidden from anybody who happens to enjoy the web browser interface to /usr/doc. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Karlsruhe, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom | Fon: *49 721 966 32 15 Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG Rightful Heir | Fax: *49 721 966 31 29
Re: PLEASE: standard package README file/orientation
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 07:17:32PM -0400, Daniel Barclay wrote: From: Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... Current policy requires that /usr/doc/package exist (possibly as a symlink to /usr/share/doc/package). Then why don't more package implement that policy? If the package doesn't do that, it's a bug in the package. I just argued that in doc directory, which typically contains a mess of upstream files, there should be a file that is easily recognizable (having a standard name) as the Debian README file. If there is such a file, the standard name is README.[Dd]ebian. If the maintainer didn't think of anything to say, there won't be such a file. works for *every* package. (Yes, I know it would be more efficient to combine into one dpkg -L command, I left it as an exercise for the reader.) If Debian really thinks that is sufficient, then this is hopeless. For a lot of packages there isn't anything worthwhile to add to the upstream documentation. Forcing every package to have a README.Debian saying Documentation for foo can be found by saying 'man foo'. or whatever isn't particularly constructive: it creates a whole bunch of files with trivial content that just end up being noise. What exactly are you looking for? More orientation in complex packages? That's something you should take up with the maintainers. Otherwise, it seems you want some improved system for browsing documentation. I guess something like that would need to be implemented before it could become policy. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
Re: PLEASE: standard package README file/orientation
On 23-Aug-00, 18:17 (CDT), Daniel Barclay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... Current policy requires that /usr/doc/package exist (possibly as a symlink to /usr/share/doc/package). Then why don't more package implement that policy? Because they're *broken*, as I said before. Instead of arguing here, why don't you report bugs against the broken packages? It is not the maintainer's job to keep a packages upstream documentation up-to-date. Sorry, but that's the way it is. So? I didn't say it was. I didn't say that Debian maintainers should clean up upstream documentation. You said that if the upstream package doesn't have an orientation document, then we should create policy to mandate that the Debian maintainer write such a document. You said that if the upstream documentation was jumbled or out of date, then the maintainer need to fix it, or provide a replacement. If that's not what you wanted them to do, what exactly *did* you want, and how does it help? I just argued that in doc directory, which typically contains a mess of upstream files, there should be a file that is easily recognizable (having a standard name) as the Debian README file. And what content do you want in it? From your previous posts, I understood that you wanted an overview of the package contents (dpkg -L), a list and description of other relevant documents, and perhaps a where to go next. That sounds like (what is properly) upstream documentation to me. If a maintainer chooses to write such a document (and possibly submit it upstream), then that's great. Having such a document mandated is not. If Debian really thinks that is sufficient, then this is hopeless. I don't know what Debian thinks. I only know what I think. -- Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read every list I post to.)
Re: PLEASE: standard package README file/orientation
From: Rogerio Brito [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Aug 19 2000, John Ackermann wrote: I heartily agree with Daniel's plea. Eveb a simple listing of what configuration files the package uses (and where they are), and where it stores data (i.e., does it use space in /var) would be a big help. All packages *do* already have such files. Documentation files for package package are intended to be in the /usr/share/doc/package directory. ... If a given package doesn't do this, then this particular package has a bug (but not the Distribution as a whole). Frankly, this is a pretty standard thing and many people would want it. Why would you think the packages don't have such an important feature? Why? Because of all the times I've needed such information and it wasn't there or was hard to find. Some packages don't have a documentation directory at all. Some others do but their files are so scrambled that you can't tell which are current, which are obsolete (because of, e.g., Debian clean-up of how the package works), etc., without reading each file. Look, all I'm asking for is basic starting-point documentation (a brief mention of what you might want to do with the package, and pointers to existing documentation on how to configure and use it) in a standard place (a known file name to look for in /usr/share/doc/package/). PLEASE remember what changes, especially for the user installing the software, between building and installing from source tarballs vs. installing distribution packages: When building from source, you have a README file with build and installation instructions (because it's obvious enough to authors that users need a README file to know how to build and install the software easily). Installation includes configuration, so that's usually mentioned in the README file. Installation README files typically conclude with pointers to what you can do with the software (e.g., now you should be able to run the xyz command) and documentation (e.g., for more details see 'man pdq.conf). The main thing is that at the point right after you've installed the software, you aren't left hanging; you've been following some script, and it usually winds down with pointers to what to do next. (Even it doesn't, it typically started with some orientation to what the software is in the first place.) When you install a package, on the other hand, building and installation are already handled, so, of course, you don't need the building and installation parts of a traditional README file. However, the nothing in the package installation system handles pointing the user to what can be done next with the just-installed software. Therefore, packages still need to provide the orientation or what-to-do-next part of a traditional README file. Debian packages don't provide that orientation reliably at all. Source tarballs usually provide the primary README file in a known or clearly recognizable place (./README or ./INSTALL). The user knows where to look, and can distinguish that file from others lying around the same directory (wasting much time figuring out which is which). Packaged software should also provide its primary README file in a known place. We do have directory /usr/share/doc/package/ (well, for some packages), but there doesn't seem to be a standard file name for the primary README file so you can recognize it without wading through the various files that might be in that directory. (Maybe that standard file name is supposed to be README.Debian, but that certainly isn't there reliably (e.g., its exists only 71 of the 216 package installed here). Several of those files _do_ point to configuration or explain what's different on Debian, but others do not.) Not that I want to hold up anything on MS Windows as positive, but think about how a typical(?) installer works: After installing its software, it leaves the Start Menu subfolder open (to tell you what applications or utilities you can run), and opens the read-me file. Instead of simply exiting after installation and leaving you hanging, wondering what new applications or utilities you can invoke, it gives you a(n admittedly crude) pointer to those programs (the Start Menu subfolder), and also gives you a starting point (the read-me file) for using the software. I'm certainly not saying that Debian should use those methods or anything close (besides, they wouldn't work for installing multiple packages at once); I'm just pointing out that those installers don't leave the user hanging after installation. Daniel -- Daniel Barclay [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hmm. A little worrisome: http://www.junkbusters.com/cgi-bin/privacy http://www.anonymizer.com/snoop.cgi )
Re: PLEASE: standard package README file/orientation
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 12:12:47AM -0400, Daniel Barclay wrote: Why? Because of all the times I've needed such information and it wasn't there or was hard to find. What's insufficient about dpkg -L package? (Or, if you've forgotten why you wanted to install the package, dpkg -s package to look at the description again) Some packages don't have a documentation directory at all. Erm. Every package must have /usr/doc/package/copyright (or /usr/share/doc/package/copyright. Which ones don't? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and working code.'' -- Dave Clark pgpwdRm0N4MO4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PLEASE: standard package README file/orientation
On 22-Aug-00, 23:12 (CDT), Daniel Barclay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some packages don't have a documentation directory at all. Then they are in violation of the Debian policy. Current policy requires that /usr/doc/package exist (possibly as a symlink to /usr/share/doc/package). Some others do but their files are so scrambled that you can't tell which are current, which are obsolete (because of, e.g., Debian clean-up of how the package works), etc., without reading each file. It is not the maintainer's job to keep a packages upstream documentation up-to-date. Sorry, but that's the way it is. If the maintainer does something to the package obsoletes or otherwise breaks the upstream documentation, then that info *should* be in changelog.Debian.gz, if nowhere else. PLEASE remember what changes, especially for the user installing the software, between building and installing from source tarballs vs. installing distribution packages: [snip description of README, etc.] If that information is provided by the upstream package, then it should be included in the doc directory, under the same name. Policy specifically allows for build and installation instructions to be omitted, but other materials should be included. That they are not is a bug in the package, not in policy. Debian packages don't provide that orientation reliably at all. ls -l /usr/doc/foo dpkg -L foo |grep bin dpkg -L foo |grep man dpkg -L foo |grep info works for *every* package. (Yes, I know it would be more efficient to combine into one dpkg -L command, I left it as an exercise for the reader.) We do have directory /usr/share/doc/package/ (well, for some packages), You're looking in the wrong place -- we haven't completed the transition to /usr/share/doc yet -- the canonical place is /usr/doc. Look, I share some of your frustrations. But the problem is with individual packages not included the upstream materials, or the lack of upstream materials. If a maintainer chooses to augment what's upstream that's great. Writing a policy requirement for such is not. Steve
Re: PLEASE: standard package README file/orientation
From: Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 22-Aug-00, 23:12 (CDT), Daniel Barclay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... ... Current policy requires that /usr/doc/package exist (possibly as a symlink to /usr/share/doc/package). Then why don't more package implement that policy? Some others do but their files are so scrambled that you can't tell which are current, which are obsolete (because of, e.g., Debian clean-up of how the package works), etc., without reading each file. It is not the maintainer's job to keep a packages upstream documentation up-to-date. Sorry, but that's the way it is. So? I didn't say it was. I didn't say that Debian maintainers should clean up upstream documentation. I just argued that in doc directory, which typically contains a mess of upstream files, there should be a file that is easily recognizable (having a standard name) as the Debian README file. Debian packages don't provide that orientation reliably at all. ls -l /usr/doc/foo dpkg -L foo |grep bin dpkg -L foo |grep man dpkg -L foo |grep info works for *every* package. (Yes, I know it would be more efficient to combine into one dpkg -L command, I left it as an exercise for the reader.) If Debian really thinks that is sufficient, then this is hopeless. Daniel -- Daniel Barclay [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hmm. A little worrisome: http://www.junkbusters.com/cgi-bin/privacy http://www.anonymizer.com/snoop.cgi )
Re: PLEASE: standard package README file/orientation
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 07:17:32PM -0400, Daniel Barclay wrote: Debian packages don't provide that orientation reliably at all. ls -l /usr/doc/foo dpkg -L foo |grep bin dpkg -L foo |grep man dpkg -L foo |grep info works for *every* package. (Yes, I know it would be more efficient to combine into one dpkg -L command, I left it as an exercise for the reader.) If Debian really thinks that is sufficient, then this is hopeless. Then why isn't it sufficient? Is it not GUI-fied enough? Then please, write a little GUI that lets you enter a package name, and will then run the above and say this package has these binaries, would you like to look at their manapage or info page? and lets you click on the manpages or infopages that exist? Thanks to the existance of dpkg -L that shouldn't be particularly difficult to write, and it doesn't require 4000 packages to be changed so it's much much easier to get accepted. What, exactly, is it you want that dpkg -L doesn't provide? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and working code.'' -- Dave Clark pgpFOI0Tvo4Dz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PLEASE: standard package README file/orientation
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 07:17:32PM -0400, Daniel Barclay wrote: So? I didn't say it was. I didn't say that Debian maintainers should clean up upstream documentation. I just argued that in doc directory, which typically contains a mess of upstream files, there should be a file that is easily recognizable (having a standard name) as the Debian README file. README.Debian exists in the package(s) which have made substainial changes to how the package operates. If it exists it contains important information that the maintainer wanted you to read. Debian packages don't provide that orientation reliably at all. ls -l /usr/doc/foo dpkg -L foo |grep bin dpkg -L foo |grep man dpkg -L foo |grep info works for *every* package. (Yes, I know it would be more efficient to combine into one dpkg -L command, I left it as an exercise for the reader.) If Debian really thinks that is sufficient, then this is hopeless. What makes it insufficient? It give you all the information you were orginially asking for (starting points to explore further). Anand
Re: PLEASE: standard package README file/orientation
From: Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... Current policy requires that /usr/doc/package exist (possibly as a symlink to /usr/share/doc/package). On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 07:17:32PM -0400, Daniel Barclay wrote: Then why don't more package implement that policy? Please give some examples of packages which do not? Debian packages don't provide that orientation reliably at all. ls -l /usr/doc/foo dpkg -L foo |grep bin dpkg -L foo |grep man dpkg -L foo |grep info works for *every* package. (Yes, I know it would be more efficient to combine into one dpkg -L command, I left it as an exercise for the reader.) If Debian really thinks that is sufficient, then this is hopeless. Actually, I'd say that grep bin/ would be better than grep bin (without the slash). Similarly, for documentation, you might want to use something like egrep 'man/|info/|doc/'. Or, failing that, do a web search on the topic you're interested in. I agree that we could do better about indexing or cross indexing our documentation. But anything better than grepping the list of files provided by the package really has to be done on a case-by-case basis. [Do you understand why? It's because further improvements must be in the form of better content.] -- Raul
Re: PLEASE: standard package README file/orientation
There are probably 2 packaging interfaces you could check out .. kpackage (not part of debian i dont think but available from kde.tdyc.com) gnome-apt nate Anthony Towns wrote: On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 07:17:32PM -0400, Daniel Barclay wrote: Debian packages don't provide that orientation reliably at all. ls -l /usr/doc/foo dpkg -L foo |grep bin dpkg -L foo |grep man dpkg -L foo |grep info works for *every* package. (Yes, I know it would be more efficient to combine into one dpkg -L command, I left it as an exercise for the reader.) If Debian really thinks that is sufficient, then this is hopeless. Then why isn't it sufficient? Is it not GUI-fied enough? Then please, write a little GUI that lets you enter a package name, and will then run the above and say this package has these binaries, would you like to look at their manapage or info page? and lets you click on the manpages or infopages that exist? Thanks to the existance of dpkg -L that shouldn't be particularly difficult to write, and it doesn't require 4000 packages to be changed so it's much much easier to get accepted. What, exactly, is it you want that dpkg -L doesn't provide? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and working code.'' -- Dave Clark Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature -- ::: ICQ: 75132336 http://www.aphroland.org/ http://www.linuxpowered.net/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PLEASE: standard package README file/orientation
bish wrote: Just to find out what all packages are installed, there are no easy solutions. dpkg -l -- see shy jo
Re: PLEASE: standard package README file/orientation
If there is anything called users-requests this certainly should be placed there for the kind Debian developers to take notice. Surely, dpkg --search / list / listfiles / print-avail is no replacement for a dedicated package/ wrapper for these purposes. Just to find out what all packages are installed, there are no easy solutions. Yes, everyting is available in /var/lib/dpkg/status in pure ASCII form inclusive of which all software are installed/ purged etc, it is certainly not an easy task to go through the whole list. There is a need for something like gnorpm/ kpackage/ glint used in RH and other RH based distros. Even YaST in SuSE serves fine. For plain tar ball packages a bash script pkgtool of SlackWare is good enough. Then why not something for deb packages ? There is surely a need for gaining more support for this cause until the developers take notice. Before somebody points out, why not do it yourself I have started on a hack of pkgtool today. I'll post it on this list once ready. I do not know enough programming to try fancier stuff ! Afterall, Computers for me is a hobby only. I am a full-time doctor by profession. USM Bish On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, Rogerio Brito wrote: On Aug 19 2000, John Ackermann wrote: I heartily agree with Daniel's plea. Eveb a simple listing of what configuration files the package uses (and where they are), and where it stores data (i.e., does it use space in /var) would be a big help. All packages *do* already have such files. Documentation files for package package are intended to be in the /usr/share/doc/package directory. Configuration files in Debian are (or should be) accessible from the /etc directory. If a given package doesn't do this, then this particular package has a bug (but not the Distribution as a whole). Frankly, this is a pretty standard thing and many people would want it. Why would you think the packages don't have such an important feature? []s, Roger... -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/ Nectar homepage: http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/nectar/ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null -- : - Its a BishMail :-) - :
Re: PLEASE: standard package README file/orientation
Bish writes: There is a need for something like gnorpm/ kpackage/ glint used in RH and other RH based distros. Have you looked at console-apt? -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI
Re: PLEASE: standard package README file/orientation
Frankly NO. It is not there in my CD based distribution from where I installed. It must be a later on addition to the debian applications after release of slink. I'll do an apt-get for this and give a try. Thanks. Just one last question. Does it work on local file systems as well, when the connection is down ? USM Bish On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, John Hasler wrote: Bish writes: There is a need for something like gnorpm/ kpackage/ glint used in RH and other RH based distros. Have you looked at console-apt? -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null -- : - Its a BishMail :-) - :
Re: PLEASE: standard package README file/orientation
On Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 05:33:05PM +0530, bish wrote: If there is anything called users-requests this certainly should be placed there for the kind Debian developers to take notice. Surely, the best way to make a feature request is probably to file a *wishlist* bug against package `general' explain in a calm and reasonable way what the request or problem is. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/ pgp8ibXOEujJh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PLEASE: standard package README file/orientation
On Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 09:34:54AM -0500, John Hasler wrote: Bish writes: There is a need for something like gnorpm/ kpackage/ glint used in RH and other RH based distros. Have you looked at console-apt? Not to mention aptitude, gnome-apt, and good old dselect (hey, i like it). apt-cache is quite useful as well. -- finger for GPG public key. pgpXXDILYVCTD.pgp Description: PGP signature
PLEASE: standard package README file/orientation
Why don't all Debian packages come with installation instructions in a _standard_ place that tell you what you need to do (after installing the package) to configure or use the package you just loaded? There needs to be a standard place to consult to know what a package needs (setup) and what it provides (e.g., commands the user can now run). PLEASE think about what happens right after users install a package: They know the name of the package. They don't necessarily know the name of any commands, other executables, or configuration files provided by the package. Therefore, they can't use any of those names to try to find any manual pages for those the package. (Remember that package names frequently don't match command names. Consider package ppp providing executable pppd, and pilot-link providing pilot-xfer, etc., but no pilot-link.) The only name the users know for sure is the name of the package. Since the users do know that name, they can go to /usr/share/doc/packagename to look for any setup instructions, for orientation to what they can do, or pointers to other documentation (e.g., manual pagse). (Note that even if a package runs a configuration command during installation, a mention of that configuration command is still needed in the doc directory: Users need to know what command to run if later they want to reconfigure things.) There needs to be root documentation for each package that contains or points to information on: - setting up the package or changing the setup, - using the package (e.g,. what commands in provides, or what daemons will be running) - separate configuration packages and add-on packages (e.g., lpr's orientation file would mention magicfilter) - signficant differences from the upstream version of the package. How about something like this?: Define (as part of the Debian package policies) a file in /usr/share/doc/package/ with a standard name (maybe use README.Debian consistently, or something like ORIENTATION). Have a setup/configuration section that mentions any manual steps needed to set up the package and pointers to other documentation on that setup. If setup was done automatically during installation, mention how to re-configure the package. Have a section on using the package that mentions commands, daemons, libaries/functions, documentation, etc., provided by the package. Please think about a typical README file for component distributed in source form: After telling you how to build and install the component, it typically tells you: - what you have to do to configure your installation, - what you should be able to do with it (what commands you can now run), and - where the documentation is (the names of manual or info pages or of other files). Now, consider documentation needs when using automatic package installation: It's true that we don't need the build or base installation instructions. However, we _do_ still need the configuration instructions and the pointers to provided commands and documentation. Otherwise, how can users know how to use the just-installed software? PLEASE consider requiring some starting point documentation for packages. (Note that this isn't MS Windows, where you install one thing at a time, and where it can leave a Start Menu folder open on your desktop to give you a hint about what new commands you can run. (Not that that's a _good_ orientation or pointer, but it's something.) Daniel -- Daniel Barclay [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hmm. A little worrisome: http://www.junkbusters.com/cgi-bin/privacy http://www.anonymizer.com/snoop.cgi )
Re: PLEASE: standard package README file/orientation
On Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 03:23:22PM -0400, Daniel Barclay wrote: Why don't all Debian packages come with installation instructions in a _standard_ place that tell you what you need to do (after installing the package) to configure or use the package you just loaded? Most Debian packages don't need additional configuration after they've been installed. (A pretty big majority also have binary names that match the package names.) PLEASE think about what happens right after users install a package: They know the name of the package. Yes. They don't necessarily know the name of any commands, other executables, or configuration files provided by the package. Therefore, they can't use any of those names to try to find any manual pages for those the package. Yes, they can: dpkg --listfiles pkgname There needs to be root documentation for each package that contains or points to information on: For each package? I don't think so! The great majority of packages do not need any such documentation. I think it would be extremely pointless for me to add a file saying To run ted, type 'ted'. To configure 'ted', type 'ted' and then use the menus. To see the documentation, type 'man ted' or type 'ted' and click on 'Help'. If we do this for every package in the system, we add a bunch of useless, bloated crap to the system. Furthermore, it's just one more thing to worry about and to have get out of sync with reality. Now, for those packages where it isn't easy to figure out what to do (and where dpkg --listfiles doesn't help), there should be some information in /usr/share/doc/README.Debian or something. If you find such packages, and they aren't adequately documented already, I suggest that you file wishlist bug reports. But let's not go overboard here. Making this a requirement for all packages is just silly. I venture to guess that 80% of all packages have a binary that matches the package name, and don't need *any* (re)configuration. And of the remainder, most do have adequate documentation already. cheers -- Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I have a truly elegant proof of the or[EMAIL PROTECTED] | above, but it is too long to fit into | this .signature file.
Re: PLEASE: standard package README file/orientation
Why don't all Debian packages come with installation instructions in a _standard_ place that tell you what you need to do (after installing the package) to configure or use the package you just loaded? I heartily agree with Daniel's plea. Eveb a simple listing of what configuration files the package uses (and where they are), and where it stores data (i.e., does it use space in /var) would be a big help. John Ackermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- John Ackermann N8UR Dayton, Ohio, USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.febo.com -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: 2.6.3a mQBtAzgI9hgAAAEDAMiMQDZTVVuVIS0AscJ0Wy63oK4+Q5xvtxbX/ZoG1qCOuYDI Fph4/RqL9vVEItWBy6ISk+zbkATzPgy84nrI7+GBtld4F9DoHWARQXjC1I8cFZjY TSe16ffqO/ba1ukLnQAFEbQlSm9obiBSLiBBY2tlcm1hbm4gTjhVUiA8anJhQGZl Ym8uY29tPokAdQMFEDgI9hjqO/ba1ukLnQEBtYIC/AxJ2RqT0/9TqY8JGEkPx2sw +W5Z6Tu4UI654t9diGdCcIEPjOG1qUvwH2Xop0Yj9QGoM4NnHIw6qUSN5VH7hHKA bGnpuTxinuW/gKaI3bt2MC8QZZq0gy2de26907lE2A== =UHWl -END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-
Re: PLEASE: standard package README file/orientation
On Aug 19, John Ackermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I heartily agree with Daniel's plea. Eveb a simple listing of what configuration files the package uses (and where they are), and where it stores data (i.e., does it use space in /var) would be a big help. less /var/lib/dpkg/info/package.list If you really care, write a nice wrapper users can use to read the file. -- ciao, Marco
Re: PLEASE: standard package README file/orientation
I heartily agree with Daniel's plea. Eveb a simple listing of what
configuration files the package uses (and where they are), and where it
stores data (i.e., does it use space in /var) would be a big help.
less /var/lib/dpkg/info/package.list
If you really care, write a nice wrapper users can use to read the file.
Uhm, how about.. ?
dpkg-l()
{
dpkg -L $1
}
=)
Re: PLEASE: standard package README file/orientation
On Aug 19 2000, John Ackermann wrote: I heartily agree with Daniel's plea. Eveb a simple listing of what configuration files the package uses (and where they are), and where it stores data (i.e., does it use space in /var) would be a big help. All packages *do* already have such files. Documentation files for package package are intended to be in the /usr/share/doc/package directory. Configuration files in Debian are (or should be) accessible from the /etc directory. If a given package doesn't do this, then this particular package has a bug (but not the Distribution as a whole). Frankly, this is a pretty standard thing and many people would want it. Why would you think the packages don't have such an important feature? []s, Roger... -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/ Nectar homepage: http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/nectar/ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Re: PLEASE: standard package README file/orientation
Why don't all Debian packages come with installation instructions in a _standard_ place that tell you what you need to do (after installing the package) to configure or use the package you just loaded? Are not the contents of /usr/share/doc/package contain this info? I heartily agree with Daniel's plea. Eveb a simple listing of what configuration files the package uses (and where they are), and where it stores data (i.e., does it use space in /var) would be a big help. Isn't dpkg -L package yield the list of files that are installed by package? John Ackermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- John Ackermann N8UR Dayton, Ohio, USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.febo.com -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: 2.6.3a mQBtAzgI9hgAAAEDAMiMQDZTVVuVIS0AscJ0Wy63oK4+Q5xvtxbX/ZoG1qCOuYDI Fph4/RqL9vVEItWBy6ISk+zbkATzPgy84nrI7+GBtld4F9DoHWARQXjC1I8cFZjY TSe16ffqO/ba1ukLnQAFEbQlSm9obiBSLiBBY2tlcm1hbm4gTjhVUiA8anJhQGZl Ym8uY29tPokAdQMFEDgI9hjqO/ba1ukLnQEBtYIC/AxJ2RqT0/9TqY8JGEkPx2sw +W5Z6Tu4UI654t9diGdCcIEPjOG1qUvwH2Xop0Yj9QGoM4NnHIw6qUSN5VH7hHKA bGnpuTxinuW/gKaI3bt2MC8QZZq0gy2de26907lE2A== =UHWl -END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null -- -- Shaul Karl [EMAIL PROTECTED] Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com -- -- Shaul Karl [EMAIL PROTECTED] Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com
Re: PLEASE: standard package README file/orientation
Shaul Karl writes: Are not the contents of /usr/share/doc/package contain this info? No. It usually just contains the Debian changelog, the copyright files, and any miscellaneous docs from upstream (often none). Isn't dpkg -L package yield the list of files that are installed by package? That produces a list that is certain to be incomprehensible to a new user. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI
Re: PLEASE: standard package README file/orientation
On Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 07:50:31PM -0500, John Hasler wrote: That produces a list that is certain to be incomprehensible to a new user. If you're only interested in which config files a certain program uses you can do something like: dpkg -s package_name and read the part after Conffiles:. -- // André
Re: PLEASE: standard package README file/orientation
André writes: If you're only interested in which config files a certain program uses you can do something like: dpkg -s package_name and read the part after Conffiles:. Yes, of course I can: I'm a Debian developer and I have been using Debian since 1.1. The average new user, however, won't find the output of 'dpkg -s package_name' much more comprehensible than the output of 'dpkf -L packagename'. She also will have no reason to suspect that either command would be of any use to her. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, Wisconsin
