> > Think this: Do the docs document the docs? /usr/share/doc/mutt documents
> > mutt, but /usr/share/doc/mutt-doc... documents... what? mutt-doc? Is a
> > nonsensical place for documentation, I think. It only has some sense from a
> > package management perspective, but that's not ok, package man
On 22-Aug-00, 23:12 (CDT), Daniel Barclay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some packages don't have a documentation directory at all.
Then they are in violation of the Debian policy. Current policy
requires that /usr/doc/ exist (possibly as a symlink to
/usr/share/doc/).
> Some others do but their f
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 12:12:47AM -0400, Daniel Barclay wrote:
> Why? Because of all the times I've needed such information and it
> wasn't there or was hard to find.
What's insufficient about dpkg -L ? (Or, if you've forgotten
why you wanted to install the package, dpkg -s to look at the
descr
> From: Rogerio Brito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Aug 19 2000, John Ackermann wrote:
> > I heartily agree with Daniel's plea. Eveb a simple listing of what
> > configuration files the package uses (and where they are), and where it
> > stores data (i.e., does it use space in /var) would be a bi
>>"Josip" == Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Josip> I don't get it. Which is it, then, BUILD_DEBUG=yes or
Josip> DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=debug ?
Footnotes are not part of the policy, so we should prefer the
actual policy to the footnote. However, this is indeed a bug, and it
shall b
On 22-Aug-00, 21:02 (CDT), Nicol?s Lichtmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Think this: Do the docs document the docs? /usr/share/doc/mutt documents
> mutt, but /usr/share/doc/mutt-doc... documents... what? mutt-doc? Is a
> nonsensical place for documentation, I think. It only has some sense from
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 11:54:43AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> An excellent idea! And, in order to avoid potential conflicts or
> abuse, any proposed all-upper-case names should be discussed on
> -policy first. With that addition, I think we have the makings of a
> fine proposal here.
If someon
> > > 1. I subtly avoided those by specifying doc- rather than -doc :-)
> > > FWIW, I think we ought to come to agreement about the proper behaviour:
> > > right now I don't know *where* to look after installing foo-doc.
> >
> > Here the solution is clear to me. A package mutt-doc docume
On 22-Aug-00, 18:27 (CDT), Nicol?s Lichtmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1. I subtly avoided those by specifying doc- rather than -doc :-)
> > FWIW, I think we ought to come to agreement about the proper behaviour:
> > right now I don't know *where* to look after installing foo-doc.
>
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 08:27:37PM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> Sounds good, I would agree with this Let's save the game here (doom
> metaphor). Now: What about other kind of specs? Would it be useful to have
> a /usr/share/doc/specs/RFC? together with a /usr/share/doc/specs/w3 and
> such?
> > That's a half true. Many packages install files in the doc directory of the
> > package being documented. /usr/share/doc/doc-rfc/ should only have a
> > changelog and a README.
>
> 1. I subtly avoided those by specifying doc- rather than -doc :-)
> FWIW, I think we ought to come to
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 68981 wishlist
Bug#68981: dpkg: runs ldconfig way too often
Severity set to `wishlist'.
> reassign 68981 dpkg
Bug#68981: dpkg: runs ldconfig way too often
Bug reassigned from package `debian-policy' to `dpkg'.
> thanks
Stopping processing her
severity 68981 wishlist
reassign 68981 dpkg
thanks
>>"Josip" == Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Josip> On Fri, Aug 11, 2000 at 03:44:08PM -0600, Dwayne C. Litzenberger wrote:
>> Post-install ldconfigs should be taken over by dpkg. ldconfig
>> should only be run once at the end of an
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> On 20 Aug 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> What is wrong with the plan currently in place?
Santiago> It will slow down the goal of FHS compliance (inclusing an empty
Santiago> /usr/doc) even more.
Umm, speed of conf
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 10:16:09PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> Since package names must be all-lower-case, perhaps all-upper-case names
> (like the existing /usr/share/doc/{HOWTO,HTML}) could be reserved for
> "particularly useful" documentation packages?
An excellent idea! And, in order to avo
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 03:11:57PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> [ Background: Sergio has written support for gnome .desktop files into
> debhelper. ]
> Sergio Rua wrote:
> > > Are .desktop files actually useful on Debian systems? Doesn't the menu
> > > system take care of it?
> > Yes if you us
severity 69229 normal
retitle 69229 [AMENDMENT 2000/08/22] Free pkgs depending on non-US
thanks
This has been seconded by Santiago Vila, Joseph Carter and Josip Rodin. It
seems pretty uncontroversial and straightforward, so ten days for any
further discussion seems reasonable.
Cheers,
aj
--
Ant
Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 21-Aug-00, 15:56 (CDT), Nicol?s Lichtmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Besides, it would be nice to have many rfc packages: doc-rfc-mail,
> > doc-rfc-web, all of them puting packages in /usr/share/doc/rfc. And
> > there could be symlinkf pointing to the most recent
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Greenland) wrote on 21.08.00 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> right now I don't know *where* to look after installing foo-doc.
/var/lib/dpkg/info/foo-doc.list.
> (Yes, both of the above points are rather facetious...)
Me too.
> > Besides, it would be nice to have many rfc pa
19 matches
Mail list logo
