[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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)

| 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 (
  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@
  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)




Dominik Eberlein

This message was distributed manually by Bruce@debian.org after the list
initially failed to distribute it.

Reply to: