Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 10:10:00 +0100 (MET)
From: Santiago Vila Doncel <sanvila@unex.es>
To: Debian Bugs <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: Policy manual contradicts itself about including docs or not.
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970307095707.2128C-100000@cantor>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.4.0.8

The following paragraphs are somewhat contradictory:

1) If a package comes with large amounts of documentation which many
   users of the package will not require you should create a separate
   binary package to contain it, so that it does not take up disk space
   on the machines of users who do not need or want it installed.

2) If your package comes with extensive documentation in a markup format
   that can be converted to various other formats you should if possible
   ship HTML versions in the binary package, in the directory
   /usr/doc/package or its subdirectories.

What if both 1) and 2) are true? i.e. What if a package comes with large
amounts of documentation "which many users of the package will not
require" but it is in texinfo format ("that can be converted easily to
HTML")? This applies to most GNU programs.

I think policy should be clear about this, and state which is more
important, either 1) or 2)

[ In my opinion, it would be better to ship it in a different package,
this way user is free to install or not install the documentation. The
important thing here, I think, is that HTML docs should be "available",
which is not exactly the same as "included in the binary package". ]

BTW: My apologies to Manoj Srivastava and Ramos Gon=E7alves. I read 1) but =
I
didn't remember 2). This bug against policy should have been the first.