Subject: Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/databases
To: None <tech-pkg@NetBSD.org>
From: James K. Lowden <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/21/2004 09:43:01
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Ben Collver <email@example.com> wrote:
> > And, I've still haven't seen a single good pro-doc/html argument.
> > Sorry!
> I haven't been arguing that doc/html is good, that's why you haven't
> seen an argument from me. I've been trying to figure out what's so bad
> about it, and what's so good about just using doc. Your case is that
> the documentation is hard to find. The "find" command should work
> pretty well for that. I'm not going to complain if doc/html is merged
> with doc. But I haven't heard a compelling reason to do it.
Let me try, so Michael can take a breath. :-)
If find(1) is the ultimate tool for finding files, I suppose there's no
need or purpose to any directory structure or naming convention. In fact,
though, as I'm sure you agree, the directory structure does serve a
purpose: to differentiate and categorize files.
I submit to you that someone typing "ls /usr/pkg/share/doc" is looking for
documentation for something. He's *not* looking for documentation of a
kind. Suppose "ls /usr/pkg/share/doc" returned this:
html latex pdf txt misc
Now what? Time for find(1), eh? And pkg_info -L? Far better, don't you
think, if he's instead consistently presented with a list of packages?
The package is free to organize its documentation as it pleases within
/usr/pkg/share/doc/<pkg>/. I agree that if there's a body of text files
and a body of HTML, it can be worthwhile to segregate them. Within the
package's tree, that is.