On Saturday 23 June 2007, Joachim Schipper wrote: > On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 08:49:30AM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote: > > On Friday 22 June 2007, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > > > > Section #9 states: > > > > "We recommend you place the license in > > > > /usr/local/share/doc/<name>/." > > > > > > > > If you've already have a /usr/local/share/<name>/ directory for > > > > the application data files, as well as a > > > > /usr/local/share/<name>/doc/ directory for misc stuff (as well > > > > as a man page and gnuinfo page), is there really any point in > > > > also creating the suggested directory just for the license? > > > > > > Why don't you just call the doc directory > > > /usr/local/share/doc/<name>/ instead of > > > /usr/local/share/<name>/doc/? > > > > Good question. I wish it was that easy. The trouble is the the app > > looks to find its' own documentation relative to a base path. > > Isn't that 'patchable'? >
The only fair answer is the all too typical "yes, but ..." The base dir plus fixed/hard-coded path/file crap, is due to ms-windows support (and poor design). Where does one draw the line between porting and rewriting vast swaths of code? ... -particularly when you know huge patches will probably never make it upstream and you never intended to become a full time developer for for the app? do you kinda see my point? For the moment, where to put the docs for gnubg is irrelevant. It doesn't matter where the doc directory is since makeinfo(1) is seg faulting on xml output during the build, hence it doesn't generate the xml docs. I need to fix the makeinfo(1) bug before I can go any further and I'm working on the makeinfo(1) PR now.
