Pet Peeve - Damaging Other people's work deliberately
d.rawlins at datafast.net.au
Tue Mar 14 11:26:24 UTC 2006
Mark Rosenstand wrote:
> On Friday 10 March 2006 11:16, Nick Steeves wrote:
>> On Thursday 09 March 2006 12:55, Mark Rosenstand wrote:
>>> If documentation is nicely integrated with the application, as it's
>>> the case with KDE, it isn't junk in my world either. Could we get a
>>> comment (and maybe even action) from the KDE maintainer/packager?
I consider docs to be good but not to default to install test suites.
>> I've been considering how to breach to topic of the creation of
>> /usr/share/doc for some time, and am actually kind of glad that it
>> has become a community issue, and not just a personal inconvenience.
>> To my knowledge, kde cannot simply be ./configur'ed to
>> change /usr/share/doc to /usr/lib/kde3/doc, so it looks like a big
>> "allow or disallow /usr/share/doc" decision.
Why can't KDE use man pages? why need a /usr/share/doc when we have man
and if there arn't any man formated pages, wouldn't there be a program
to turn text or html docs into man pages?
> I think /usr/share/doc is the right place for it (at least according to
> the FHS which states "platform independant application data") - but the
> location isn't the issue; it's the junk people tend to put in there :-)
>> Would only core KDE stuff be permitted to install documentation, or
>> would all KDE software be able to? For example, does anyone
>> need/want amaroK's documentation? KOffice's? Smb4k's? BasKet?
> I'd say all KDE applications because the "affects runtime" argument also
> count for them. Actually I think it's more important for them to have
> it since the docs for kde.org releases can be found on the net, but
> that's far from the case for all the third-party applications.
More information about the CRUX