On Tue, 2022-10-25 at 09:28 +0200, Gerardo Ballabio wrote: > I believe there's a good reason for including them within > the source tarball, because html is the format that everybody > can read, while xml (yelp) is only useful if you run Gnome. Perhaps our point of disagreement is the audience for the source tarball. It is my opinion that the upstream VCS repo is for upstream developers and other people building from or contributing to the source code, the exact copy of it in the tarball is for downstream packagers and other people building from source and the binary packages are for people using the software. I believe that everything that is not source belongs in binary packages only and the HTML is definitely not source since it is generated from the XML. Of course if you were creating the HTML by hand then it would be source. > What if one wants to read the doc to learn how to build the package? Then you install the existing prebuilt -doc binary package, or view the existing prebuilt HTML on the upstream website, or download a package of prebuilt files from the upstream site, or upstream could include a summary in a plain text README in git. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part