Edward Betts writes: > Possible layout > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ <snippage>
I like the plan a lot. some thoughts: > doc/examples.tar.gz /usr/share/doc/examples/* > locale/*/gettext.tar.gz gettext translations I wonder if the default docs should not go in a locale/ subdir for the proper language (English for most of what exists now). I know very little about i18b so I won't comment on the implementation. This does have this advantages of: (a) not appearing to be English-centric (b) allowing for a package whose upstream docs are entirely in a different language (while most non-English-speaking authors also know some English or are fluent in it, many may not). > doc.tar.gz docs not in packages below (includes copyright) > copyright copy of copyright or symlink to common-licence I don't really get the reason for duplicating copyright. See below. > dists/unstable/main/binary-*/admin/at_3.1.8-10.deb > > to looking like this: > > dists/main/admin/at/* This is good. Something I brought up before was moving the package metadata (except for a list of timestamps) from a monolithic Packages file to where the individual packages are, which would be even easier here. Does anyone have any comments on that? > The user could selected a more detailed screen in dselect, > or use command line switches with apt-get to select the subpackages to be > installed or not installed. As well as /etc/apt/apt.conf options (for example, a systemwide default of no documentation). > For an even more compact system each executable and library in the package > could be split into a separate subpackage, but means we tend to lose some of > the benefits of the packaging system, and just have a load of files. This is probably overkill. > We are breaking the rules on copyright at the moment. We distribute > binaries licensed under the GPL without a copy of the GPL. I disagree. We distribute base-files on the same server. > Packages that provide the same documentation in different formats do not > always include the same documents in the different formats, but instead > different documents are included in different formats. An example might be > useful: > > Not: README, README.html and README.ps > > But: README, manual.html and specification.ps IMHO, doc-$FORMAT should only apply if the same documentation is built in different formats. There should be one 'doc' tarball for documentation which comes in a single format, and 'doc-*' or 'doc/*' for the multiple case (and then none of those files should be in the base 'doc'.) > What happens when a user selects to install binary-i386 and binary-m68k > packages? I don't see a reason to allow this; is there one? -- There is no TRUTH. There is no REALITY. There is no CONSISTENCY. There are no ABSOLUTE STATEMENTS. I'm very probably wrong. -- BSD fortune(6)