On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 06:17:59PM +0200, Michal Pasternak wrote:
> Julio M. Merino Vidal [Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 04:13:13PM +0200]:
> > Well... I used an incorrect regexp to look for packages installing pdf's.
> > There actually are some of them.  But anyway, my point remains.  Most
> > browsers are able to display them, either embedded or opening an external
> > application.
> 
> In my opinion is doc/html/ and doc/ causes massive confusion, not
> only among newbies, I think, that Unix veterans can be confused as well.
[...]
> Many times I've didn't actually remember about the 'html' directory and
> thought I haven't installed the docs I needed.
> 
> If there is doc/*html*/postgresql together with doc/postgresql, I will
> _always_ have a look at doc/postgresql first and I won't find the docs I need.
> 
> That's what I think about it. If anyone has something good to say about
> share/doc/html, please do so. Except "it's informal pkgsrc standard" or
> "many packages use it"... IMO such arguments are about the same, as "I serve
> html/ directory with Apache".
> 
> IMO, doc/html/ causes confusion and is neither ergonomic nor intuitive.  It
> should be removed.

Then what about those hideous and confusing 'man' and 'info' directories?

I don't really see what is confusing here.  I don't access share/doc/$PKGBASE
and share/doc/html/$PKGBASE the same way.

I expect to find mostly vi-friendly documentation inside share/doc/$PKGBASE,
plus the exotic formats about no package provide.  I use a browser to read
html documentation (needless to say that only happens when I'm out of
options).

Now, the confusion might only be a documentation issue, as I, for one, am
aware of the html directory, but it might be a matter of circumstances.

Let's just document it.  I find 'man packages' rather poorly advertised,
too, whereas it really is useful in case of a package duplicating
something in base.  And not getting the manpage matching the used version
*is* confusing.

Quentin Garnier.