Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Matthew Kennedy <mkennedy@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for /usr/share/doc hierarchy
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 07:35:13
Message-Id: 87zn9ty0pg.fsf@killr.ath.cx
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for /usr/share/doc hierarchy by Leo Laursen
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

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for /usr/share/doc hierarchy Stuart Herbert <stuart@g.o>