On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 09:00:21AM +0200, Joost van Baal wrote: > 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: > 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. > 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? Symlinks are explicitly introduced by: /usr/share/doc/package may be a symbolic link to another directory in /usr/share/doc only if the two packages both come from the same source and the first package Depends on the second. So it seems that dpkg violates policy, as dpkg-doc doesn't depend on dpkg? perl-doc and vim-doc seem OK. But according to Steve, my reading of the policy is wrong anyway, so... -- Lionel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
