Re: Bug#62378: Redundant directory and package name
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 08:27:37PM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> Sounds good, I would agree with this Let's save the game here (doom
> metaphor). Now: What about other kind of specs? Would it be useful to have
> a /usr/share/doc/specs/RFC? together with a /usr/share/doc/specs/w3 and
> such? (do we load the saved game? =) )
First, it would have to be /usr/share/doc/SPECS/RFC, to follow our
proposed new rule, and to avoid conflicting with any possible new
"specs" package.
Second, I'm not enamoured of the idea in the first place. But maybe
that's because I can't think of very many things to go in there....
Personally, I think we should try to minimize our overloading of the
/usr/share/doc tree.
--
Chris Waters xtifr@dsp.net | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or xtifr@debian.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
| this .signature file.
Reply to: