Re: Documentation policy: Info vs HTML
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>
> IMHO, texi2html provides nicer documents than info2www.
>
> My proposal:
>
> Texinfo is converted to both HTML and Info
> HTML is part of the main package
> Info is put into separate package, if it is big (more than a
> megabyte, perhaps?)
>
I agree.
Here I see that not only the language differentiation needs a decision
during installation; can a user (sysadm) say:
- I want only HTMLs
- I want only info
- I need both
- I want to change my mind, later.
(if we solve the language problem that I posted in another message, we
solve also this, and viceversa)
Fabrizio
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| e-mail: fpolacco@megabaud.fi fpolacco@debian.org |
| http://megabaud.fi/~fpolacco/ Join the UKI Linux Project! |
| fingerprint 70 1A 72 2D 2B C8 A5 63 7A C2 CC E0 2A 54 AE DA |
| finger: fpolacco@megabaud.fi fpolacco@master.debian.org |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
--
This message was distributed manually by Bruce@debian.org after the list
initially failed to distribute it.
>From miss
Received: from mongo.pixar.com (138.72.50.60)
by master.debian.org with SMTP; 15 Nov 1996 20:54:00 -0000
Received: (qmail 19635 invoked from network); 15 Nov 1996 20:40:14 -0000
Received: from primer.i-connect.net (HELO master.debian.org) (bruce@206.139.73.13)
by mongo.pixar.com with SMTP; 15 Nov 1996 20:40:03 -0000
X-Authentication-Warning: munch.painters.net: dominik owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 22:36:53 +0100 (MET)
From: Dominik Eberlein <eberlein@mathematik.tu-muenchen.de>
X-Sender: dominik@munch
To: Debian Developers <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: The Future of Debian TeX
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.961112085730.11638D-100000@koma.informatik.tu-muenchen.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.961112221516.1538A-100000@munch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"IRM833.0.826.6JGYo"@master.debian.org>
Resent-From: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Resent-Reply-To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
X-Mailing-List: <debian-devel@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/2945
X-Loop: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Precedence: list
Priority: non-urgent
Importance: low
Resent-Sender: debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Juergen Menden wrote:
>
> > >BASE: kpathsea, mfbase (was mfbasfnt, mfbin, mflib), texbase (was texbin,
> > >texlib, textfm)
> >
> > Just wondering...were/are texlib and textfm (for example) architecture-
> > independant?
>
> they are. also mfbasfnt and mflib.
>
> > If so, it may be worthwhile keeping them split out of texbase,
> > as it means there is less duplication between the various arch-dependant
> > directories.
>
> > ('Course, if they're fairly small, this argument falls down :)
>
> they are not.
You're right. We'll make an arch-dependant mfbin/texbin and an
arch-independant mfbase/texbase (is this a good name?! We'll have to think
over the name) consisting of former mfbasfnt,mflib/textfm,texlib.
(approx. file sizes now: mfbin: 400k, mflib: 40k, mfbasfnt: 250k,
texbin: 300k, texlib: 280k, textfm: 155k)
Bye
Dominik
---
Dominik Eberlein
(eberlein@mathematik.tu-muenchen.de)
--
This message was distributed manually by Bruce@debian.org after the list
initially failed to distribute it.
Reply to: