On lun, 2004-07-19 at 16:24 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Steven Pritchard (steve@xxxxxxxxx) said: > > So should those packages be renamed to whatever-doc (or *-doc be > > renamed to *-docs)? Or maybe we should just make sure all of the > > packages have a Provides: foo-doc[s] so getting the name wrong still > > works (at least for apt). > > Frankly, I've been of the opinion that the docs should be > merged into the main package, and can be installed with > --excludedocs if people want that. I'm probably in the > minority though (and the PHP manual makes this excessive. :) ) Sometimes docs are reference material and are quite useful even without the associated binaries (think intranet documentation server). I feel that's what the -manual (in apache-manual and in all jpp -manual packages) intends to convey. Though I must also say the /usr/share/doc mess is really not adapted to this usage (some packages install executable scripts in there for christsake!). A root dedicated to cleanly laid-out html manuals would be much better to export via http/ftp/nfs/cifs/whatever. That would be a perfect way to start seeding /srv/ for example. Cheers, -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
