CVS srivasta: * [AMENDMENT 15/01/2000] revision of the to build with X support or

2000-08-24 Thread debian-policy
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy Module name:debian-policy Changes by: srivastaThu Aug 24 00:08:38 PDT 2000 Modified files: . : menu-policy.sgml policy.sgml upgrading-checklist.html

Bug#69311: PROPOSAL] Finishing the /usr/doc - /usr/share/doc transition.

2000-08-24 Thread Santiago Vila
On 23 Aug 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Woody shall have a full /usr/share/doc/ when released, while allowing for partial upgrades from potato all the way, under the plan. The partial upgrades issue is a myth. As I said, we have never guaranteed that *every* conceivable partial

Bug#69864: debian-policy: Update section 6.7 for examples packages

2000-08-24 Thread Adam C Powell IV
Package: debian-policy Version: 3.1.1.1 Severity: wishlist I'd like to recommend a change in policy regarding examples (section 6.7), such that source code and shell scripts must either live in /usr/share/doc/package-name/examples, or (here's the change) if the package name ends in (or contains?)

Re: PLEASE: standard package README file/orientation

2000-08-24 Thread Mark Brown
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 07:17:32PM -0400, Daniel Barclay wrote: From: Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... Current policy requires that /usr/doc/package exist (possibly as a symlink to /usr/share/doc/package). Then why don't more package implement that policy? If the package doesn't

Re: PLEASE: standard package README file/orientation

2000-08-24 Thread Steve Greenland
On 23-Aug-00, 18:17 (CDT), Daniel Barclay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... Current policy requires that /usr/doc/package exist (possibly as a symlink to /usr/share/doc/package). Then why don't more package implement that policy? Because they're

Re: Bug#62378: Redundant directory and package name

2000-08-24 Thread Nicolás Lichtmaier
Nicolás, my one concern: lets assume a user installs both mutt and mutt-doc, and mutt-doc installs its docs into /usr/share/doc/mutt. User says to userself, why is my /usr/share/doc so big? A `du' later, and the mutt docs are the culprit. User thinks to userself, bummer, I like mutt, but

Re: Bug#62378: Redundant directory and package name

2000-08-24 Thread Nicolás Lichtmaier
What about the /usr/doc/foo symlink -- is foo-doc going to take care of that? What if I later install foo? Who gets to remove the link? I don't know, but this kludge is a secondary thing, and should not be considered when making policy. Any policy will last longer than these

Re: Bug#62378: Redundant directory and package name

2000-08-24 Thread Nicolás Lichtmaier
At present, it's pretty random. I would like a consistent answer to make its way into policy, but there are lots of different cases, and I don't think a simple foo-doc installs stuff into /usr/share/doc/foo is the best answer. One must also consider that some doc package are actually