[Steve Langasek, thanks for joining the discussion.] On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 12:28:47PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 02:03:25AM -0800, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 11:30:24AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > > >> caspar-doc installs files in /usr/share/doc/caspar/ ; it should > >> install them in /usr/share/doc/caspar-doc/ > > > No, this is the customary location for -doc packages to install their > > documentation if it accompanies a non-doc package. The files that policy > > requires to be in /usr/share/doc/<package>/ are there. > > "Text documentation should be installed in the directory > /usr/share/doc/package, where package is the name of the package,"
A more complete quote is:
Text
documentation should be installed in the directory
`/usr/share/doc/<package>', where <package> is the name of the
package [...]
If a package comes with large amounts of documentation which many
users of the package will not require you should create a separate
binary package to contain it, so that it does not take up disk space
on the machines of users who do not need or want it installed.
It is often a good idea to put text information files (`README's,
changelogs, and so forth) that come with the source package in
`/usr/share/doc/<package>' in the binary package. However, you don't
need to install the instructions for building and installing the
package, of course!
dpkg-doc has a symlink:
/usr/share/doc/dpkg-doc -> dpkg
perl-doc and vim-doc do the same
postfix-doc installs docs in /usr/share/doc/postfix/ .
python2.4-doc installs docs in /usr/share/doc/python2.4 .
Which of these packages violate policy?
Bye,
Joost
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
