1 |
Leo Laursen <ll_news@××××××××.dk> writes: |
2 |
|
3 |
> This was sent to gentoo-user, but I was informed that this list is more |
4 |
> apropriate |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Hi. I am rather new to gentoo, so I don't know if this has been |
7 |
> discussed before. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> On debian and now gentoo, one little irritating issue is the large |
10 |
> number of files in /usr/share/doc. On gentoo there is a very natural |
11 |
> solution by mirroring the portage tree in the doc directory. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Eg. /usr/share/doc/mutt-1.5.6 would be |
14 |
> /usr/share/doc/net-mail/mutt/mutt-1.5.6 |
15 |
> |
16 |
> It should be quite easy to implement (I think). |
17 |
> |
18 |
|
19 |
I agree. At the moment it sucks to have |
20 |
/usr/share/doc/foo-package-x.y.z/ as it is impossible to bookmark |
21 |
such a place over upgrades. I think you're mistaken about Debian's |
22 |
approach though. IIRC, on Debian its /usr/share/doc/foo-package |
23 |
(ie. no version information in the path name). |
24 |
|
25 |
You proposal has a sub-directory for the portage category. I |
26 |
wouldn't bother with that. A flat view is more useful, IMO. You |
27 |
also have a sub-directory for versions -- that is not really |
28 |
necessary -- most packages have only one slot. |
29 |
|
30 |
Matt |
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
Matthew Kennedy |
34 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |