> > Carl Mummert wrote: > > > >> I am uploading here a small, hackish perl script that, along with some > > >> apache configuration changes, will allow you to view the compressed > > >> files in http://your-machine/doc as if they were not comrpessed. > > > > > >Very nice, but I urge people to file bug reports against packages > > >that have compressed html files without hacked URLs such that they > > >still work. > > > > Not good. If the html is hacked so that links work while it is compressed, > > then when someone UNcompresses it, the links will break. This would > > certainly be a surprising effect of unzpping html files. > > Then don't do that! :-) > > My point is that files should work as installed by dpkg. If you > uncompress them, then you're on your own wrt upgrading, package > purging, and yes, even wrt the package working correctly. There > are lots of _surprising effects_ after unzipping packaged files. > > Sometimes html _is_ hacked so that links work when the file is > compressed in order to save space on user systems. This should > only be done on large HTML documentation packages. AFAIK, not > many packages do this, but I have done it myself. Should you > file it a bug report on it, the most I'd do is provide a > decompressor script to change the URLs so it still worked, with a > large disclaimer saying that using it would render the package > not upgradable and not removable by dpkg.
teTeX is on area in which the html page does not work because of the gz. format. Where do I have to report that to? Do I understand correctly, that all files in /usr/doc are supposed to be gz? If yes, then rezipping them recursevly should solve the problems with dpkg updateing etc. Thorsten Manegold