Hello together,
I am upstream maintainer of "Back In Time" (src package: backintime
[1]).
The source package results in two binary packages "backintime-common"
(the CLI) and "backintime-qt" (the GUI).
Based on that package naming two folders are created in /usr/share/doc/*
/usr/share/doc/backintime-common/
/usr/share/doc/backintime-qt/
I would like to ask if there is any convention or policy that would
forbid to have a third folder like this?
/usr/share/doc/backintime/
/usr/share/doc/backintime-common/
/usr/share/doc/backintime-qt/
The reason is that the user itself is often not aware about the
separation between "common" and "qt" and know this piece of software
just as "backintime". The latter is also the name of the shell command.
More details. Here is a selection of files that get installed for both
packages in /usr/share/doc/*
/usr/share/doc/backintime-common/LICENSE
/usr/share/doc/backintime-common/README.md.gz
/usr/share/doc/backintime-common/changelog.Debian.gz
/usr/share/doc/backintime-common/changelog.gz
/usr/share/doc/backintime-common/copyright
/usr/share/doc/backintime-common/examples/config-example-local.gz
/usr/share/doc/backintime-common/examples/config-example-ssh.gz
/usr/share/doc/backintime-qt/changelog.Debian.gz
/usr/share/doc/backintime-qt/changelog.gz
/usr/share/doc/backintime-qt/copyright
Especially the "example" files (config-example*) I would like to have in
a general folder named "backintime". Currently I am adding (at upstream)
some more other example files to the project.
Or would it make sense doing something like this?
/usr/share/doc/backintime/
/usr/share/doc/backintime/common/
/usr/share/doc/backintime/qt/
Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Christian Buhtz
[1] -- <
https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/backintime>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)