Re: Consistent location for library documentation
Look at Debian Policy, section 12.3 Additional Documentation. The answer is
there.
Scott K
On Saturday, March 03, 2018 09:25:20 AM Christopher Hoskin wrote:
> Dear Ben,
>
> Did you get an answer to this?
>
> I've just noticed a change in behavior of dh_installdocs between
> debhelper compat 10 and 11. With compat 10, documents listed in
> debian/python-<package>-doc.docs (e.g. build/html) would get installed
> to /usr/share/doc/python-<package>-doc/ but with compat 11, they get
> installed to /usr/share/doc/python-<package>/.
>
> >From the dh_installdocs man page it appears dh_installdocs has some
>
> logic to auto-detect the main package, which can be overridden with
> the --doc-main-package option.
>
> I'd like to know if dh_installdocs' default is considered correct, or
> if I should be overriding it?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Christopher
>
> On 16 July 2017 at 05:54, Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org> wrote:
> > Howdy all,
> >
> > Where is the best location for library documentation of a Debian Python
> > library package?
> >
> > Debian Policy §12.3 says:
> > […] installing the documentation into the documentation directory of
> > the main package is preferred since it is independent of the
> > packaging method and will be easier for users to find.
> >
> > This is clear enough where a library package ‘libfoo’ is the main
> > package. The documentation package ‘libfoo-doc’ can install the
> > documentation to ‘/usr/share/doc/libfoo/’.
> >
> >
> > With the split in Python runtime systems, though, there is commonly not
> > a single “main package”. Typically there are two, ‘python3-foo’ and
> > ‘python-foo’.
> >
> > The documentation package ‘python-foo-doc’ then has no one obvious place
> > to install the documentation:
> >
> > * Installing to ‘/usr/share/doc/python-foo-doc/’ is discouraged by the
> >
> > above Policy section. I agree that is not necessarily an obvious place
> > for a user to look for ‘python3-foo’ documentation.
> >
> > * Installing to ‘/usr/share/doc/python-foo/’ or
> >
> > ‘/usr/share/doc/python3-foo/’ is incorrect if the corresponding
> > library package is not installed.
> >
> > Compounding this is the fact we are (rightly, IMO) moving toward Python
> > 3 as the primary runtime, and discouraging new Python 2 packages. Is
> > ‘python3-foo’ then the “main package” by the Policy statement above?
> >
> > A symlink could be used, from ‘/usr/share/doc/libfoo-doc’ to
> > ‘/usr/share/doc/libfoo’. But that still runs into the problem of *which*
> > package should be assumed.
> >
> > And if the documentation package *only* is installed, where should it
> > install its documentation and symlinks? How should this be done to allow
> > the library packages to later be installed without changing the
> > documentation location?
> >
> >
> > I have looked at various documentation and can't see good guidance for a
> > “one obvious way” to resolve this.
> >
> > There is varying practice among packages, and anyway just because some
> > package does it a particular way doesn't mean I should copy that without
> > knowing whether it's a good idea.
> >
> > What to do?
> >
> > --
> >
> > \ “I put contact lenses in my dog's eyes. They had little |
> >
> > `\ pictures of cats on them. Then I took one out and he ran around |
> >
> > _o__) in circles.” —Steven Wright |
> > Ben Finney
Reply to: