Re: To doc or not to doc, that's the question. (long RFC)
Christian Schwarz wrote:
>
> 1. Your solution of moving the doc-packages upside in the archive
> means that there is a new "distribution" besides the usual "Debian
> GNU/Linux" distribution.
Not necessarily.
When hamm will become Debian-2.0 we'll have the "distribution"
Debian-2.0 (stable) and some subdirectories under it: main, contrib,
non-free and documentation.
There is a precise relation between documentation and the current
distribution: "documentation" is always "stable".
We could put main and contrib in the Official Debian CD and
documentation in a third Ofiicial CD, with different releasing scheme (I
propose monthly)
> Of course, dependencies would get harder. (A package in main
> may not depend on a package outside of main, for example.)
of course. I don't see why a pure-docs package should depend on a
package in unstable. If this happens, the doc should stay under unstable
(which should have a symlink to the documentation directory or, better,
a forest of symlink to the packages in stable/documentation, except for
those rare that depends outside stable. I think we still have some tool
that reveles those dependencies when moving packages out of Incoming).
>
> 2. We'd have to define some policy to tell where a doc package goes.
Yes and also HOW it is build (what should go in binary package and what
no, talking of non-pure docs pakages)
> 3. Some time ago, someone asks whether we should package up the
> whole e-texts from Project Gutenberg. Maybe the new distribution
> would be the right place?
>
If someone ever wants to "install" PG in his hard disk.
Such a "monster" could stay on a CD "per se". Better to create a debian
package to access such a CD than transform those in .deb
> 4. Some docs _are_ version dependent so these should stay in main
Yes, should be told in the policy (I think that most of the on-line docs
that comes with a package should stay in the binary package, but some
large sources have a lot of docs ...)
> For example, I'd
> like to have the same version of the man pages as of the program it
> documents.
Policy should say that manpages should anyway go in the binary package
(as it says now).
>
> 5. Each language could have its own doc-distrib or there is only
> one big doc-distrib with `sections' for each language.
Something worth a discussion.
We have two possibilities for subdivide the documentation: language and
format. We must discuss this if we decide to do so.
fabrizio
--
| fpolacco@icenet.fi fpolacco@debian.org fpolacco@pluto.linux.it
| Pluto Leader - Debian Developer & Happy Debian 1.3.1 User - vi-holic
| 6F7267F5 fingerprint 57 16 C4 ED C9 86 40 7B 1A 69 A1 66 EC FB D2 5E
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: