You are not logged in.
Hello all,
please.. is this OK from Arch's point of view?
/usr/share/doc/tuxpaint-0.9.29
Or it should rather be:
/usr/share/doc/tuxpaint
?
find /usr/share/doc -maxdepth 1 -type d -name '*-[0-9]*' | wc -l # 34 (including a false match: ntfs-3g)
find /usr/share/doc -maxdepth 1 -type d ! -name '*-[0-9]*' | wc -l # 1259
Should this be reported and fixed (unless there is a good reason to keep it)? Thank you, j
Offline
It's atypical, but I don't see why it'd be at all problematic. If there's no good reason for it, then I'd request the packager change it as an improvement, but I'd hardly call it a bug.
But what package is this from? [AUR]/tuxpaint already includes a fix for this and moves that directory to /usr/share/doc/tuxpaint.
EDIT: tuxpaint-git may not include this fix, and you could ask the maintainer of that package to add it. But again, is there actually a problem?
Last edited by Trilby (2022-10-28 23:05:20)
"UNIX is simple and coherent" - Dennis Ritchie; "GNU's Not Unix" - Richard Stallman
Offline
Mod note: moving to AUR Issues
Sakura:-
Mobo: MSI MAG X570S TORPEDO MAX // Processor: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @4.9GHz // GFX: AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT // RAM: 32GB (4x 8GB) Corsair DDR4 (@ 3000MHz) // Storage: 1x 3TB HDD, 6x 1TB SSD, 2x 120GB SSD, 1x 275GB M2 SSD
Making lemonade from lemons since 2015.
Offline