Re: Re^2: strange behavior of dh_dhelp
"Martin Bialasinski" <martin@internet-treff.uni-koeln.de> writes:
> To 1), I propose dhelp and dwww read doc-base files directly.
>
> To 2), this is a _very_ bad idea. How many packages still support
> dwww, but not dhelp? How long did it take to bring support for dhelp
> into the packages? If doc-base had been around form the beginning,
> everyone would have used it instead of creating specific dwww
> support. As soon as a new package like dhelp is installed into the
> distribution, it is supported by _every_ package having registered
> documentation. Converting to the different formats during package
> build is a _very_ bad idea.
FYI, there are philosophical differences between Marco and myself.
However, I got all caught up in the "metadata for Debian" issues,
which is a *big* issue, and it's been a year and a half with no
significant progress from me (yes, I'm a bit overburdened).
So I'm not trying to put blame or not. All I can say is that I hope
that we have a reinvigorated doc-base soon, with a unified "metadata
store" (file or files) in well-known locations, with a meaningful and
extensible subject catalog, and cross-compatability with the major
metadata standards.
Whether I find the time to do it or not, I hope it happens.
Volunteers always appreciated.
--
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Reply to: