> On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Philip Hands wrote: > > > I think we should aim to get all documentation into separate packages. > > > > Would it not be possible to make the package building tools (deb-make, > > debstd etc.) assume a simplest case of ``single binary, and single > > docs package'' rather than the current ``single binary'' ?
Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Anything with info or html docs or significant other files I can agree with; > many programs only have a couple of readme files and a man page, and putting > them in a separate package seems a little silly. (and at least the readme > file definitely should be in the main package even if there is a separate > documentation package) I agree that it is a little silly, and also that the README should be in the binary package (possibly as well as in the docs package ?), but I cannot see how to easily provide a way of installing _all_ the docs for _all_ packages, without first separating the docs. out. There is of course a problem with trying to install all the documentation on a machine, since some conflicting packages provide man pages with overlapping names. On the other hand we cannot just use the same conflicts as the binary packages --- For example: I use qmail on all local systems, but some of my clients use sendmail. I would like to install the documentation for sendmail, despite the fact that it conflicts with qmail. Maybe we need a --documentation=(yes|no|only) option for dpkg -i. Cheers, Phil. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .