discuss: Filesystem paths in LDP documentation
Subject:
Re: Filesystem paths in LDP documentation
From:
Jorge Godoy ####@####.####
Date:
16 Apr 2002 01:10:09 -0000
Message-Id: <conectiva-linux.m33cxwv488.fsf@godoy.laptop>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Colin Watson ####@####.#### writes:
> Hi,
>
> I have http://bugs.debian.org/128917 open about the use of /usr/doc,
> /usr/man, and /usr/info in LDP documentation. Now that many
> distributions are moving or have moved to the Filesystem Hierarchy
> Standard with /usr/share/{doc,man,info}, it seems like it'd be
> reasonable to start referring readers to those locations instead.
I'd say that LDP's documents should use LSB/FHS defined paths. This
should be compliant to all the major distributions now and this is
something we must incentivate.
LDP supporting LSB will give it more credibility and will attract more
attention to Linux since everything will talk about the same paths and
same locations.
> The bug opens a wider issue, though. To what extent do readers of this
> list think it's reasonable for distributions to patch their LDP packages
> to refer to locally-appropriate paths? On the one hand, it may alleviate
> confusion when readers find documents referring to paths that aren't on
> their systems. On the other hand, the document probably won't be perfect
> for each distribution anyway unless the author planned it that way, I
> suspect most authors would rather that distributions didn't make local
> changes without passing them back, and I doubt I have time to go around
> carefully patching the whole LDP all the time.
I'd say that for most distributions there's no concern with HOWTO
packages. What they do is simply packaging some documents as they are
on the day the distribution is going on freeze.
> I'm strongly inclined to distribute only verbatim LDP documents.
> However, does anyone have any suggestions about what else I might do
> with this bug report, or general ideas about best practices for
> distributors?
My suggestion is: close it saying that LDP was notified and that
Debian provides 'verbatim' documents.
For LDP, my suggestion is: we *must* use LSB/FHS stuff. This should be
added to the revision stage.
- --
Godoy. ####@####.####
Escritório de Projetos -- Conectiva S.A.
Projects Office -- Conectiva Inc.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE8u3naEzC+baSjBiURAtXYAKCJNEDNreQpDhC70D4F8ez3GAnMNACgh3oi
O7VwymeFGfEaCwf+bE8Mdtg=
=5cPK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
