On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Ben Collver <collver1@comcast.net> 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.  

--jkl