On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 11:19:45AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > 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. Yes, that would indeed be a bug in dpkg-doc, because /usr/share/doc/<package>/copyright and .../changelog.Debian.gz must exist and must correspond to the package in question. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
