Re: Feaping Creature-ism in core Debian Packages
On 13-Sep-99, 09:19 (CDT), Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca> wrote:
>
> Steve Greenland wrote:
> >
> > IMO, anything like that that package actually needs to run should be in
> > /usr/lib or /usr/share/lib.
>
> What would you do with documentation packages that want to be
> accessible to dwww and as http://localhost/doc/PACKAGE ?
>
> Packages like mh-book, tdlug, etc.
>
> I would say `a package shouldn't rely on its docs being present',
> but rather `executables shouldn't rely on docs being present'.
I see your point, but I'm not sure that "executables" is the right
word. Obviously, a pure doc packages needs to put its contents under
/usr/share/doc (or info or man, as appropriate). And things designed to
look into /usr/share/doc, like dwww and the webservers don't "fail" if a
given piece of doc isn't there.
OTOH, a program that needs a template to produce its output, or an icon
or any other sort of similar resource, should not store those items under
/usr/share/doc.
It may be one of those "I know it when I see it" sort of things.
Maybe the best we can do is give a few examples, and have people
classify there stuff against those. I'd like to believe that that
people wouldn't argue over it ("Hey, those icons really should be in
/usr/share/icons/foobar, not /usr/share/doc/foobar." "Oh yeah, you're
right.")
sg
--
Steve Greenland <vmole@swbell.net>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
Reply to: