On Tuesday 21 of August 2012 18:58:01 David C. Rankin wrote:
>   I see your point, but what else installs in /opt/trinity/share/doc? --
> ever? Your approach does provide a solution for a future /usr install
> though -- that I do like...
>
> We can also do a packaging/post-install fix on 3513:
>
> cd /opt/trinity/share/doc/kde/HTML/en
> for i in ../../../HTML/en/*/; do ln -s $i; done
>
>   or
>
> for i in ../../../HTML/en/*/; do mv $i .; done
>
> (but that type of kludge looks bad...)
>
>   The way I looked at it was -- it was the same amount of work either way:
>
> (1) create a duplicate set of commits for 3513 setting everything to
> /doc/kde/HTML/
>
> (2) attempting to cherry-pick the R14 commits to put everything in
> /doc/tde/HTML/
>
> or
>
> (3) create a set of commits to standardize the entire GIT tree on doc/HTML.
>
>   If we are looking at some future /usr install, then (2) is the correct
> way to go.
>
>   Slavek, can you look at the 4/10, 4/11 commits and see if we can just
> apply those to 3513-sru and just pull all the docs in /doc/tde/HTML/? That
> would also accomplish standardizing doc locations between R14 and 3513.
> That would be the way to go -- all things considered.
>
> Thanks.

Interesting idea. The only thing that interferes with so far quite strictly 
held principle not rename k=>t. Please (others), what about this breach rules 
do you think?

Thanks
Slavek
--