Re: Bug#96224: libgmp3: Move documentation in the -dev package
On 6 May 2001, Christian Marillat wrote:
> >>>> "DS" == Dale Scheetz <email@example.com> writes:
> DS> I can be convinced on either count. How would you feel about my presenting
> DS> this issue to the "developers" at large, with you and I agreeing to follow
> DS> the concensus of the group?
> >> Go ahead.
> DS> At this point that seems a waste of time ... I've had a nights sleep on
> DS> it, and I'm currently leaning toward the extreme solution.
> So I forward this myself.
> DS> Arguments:
> DS> 1. It's been like this forever...
> DS> 2. No one (with the exception of Christian) has ever asked that it be
> DS> moved, and several requests have been made for additional documentation.
> DS> 3. The documentation is development in nature, and should go into the -dev
> DS> package.
> DS> 4. The info, demos, and docs sections are about as large as the libraries
> DS> themselves. Removing them from the runtime is a 50% savings.
> 5. You can't build demos source if the -dev package isn't installed.
So, the demo code is not really to be built, but is just for study. If you
really want to build it, you are obviously going to need the devel
package. I guess the docs could suggest -dev.
> 6. Example files should be installed in /usr/lib/<package>/examples
> According to the Debian Policy chapter 13.7
This doesn't determine what package it goes in...
> DS> Conclusion:
> DS> While the principle of "least surprise" is important, it should not be
> DS> used to stifle progress. Moving the docs and demos out of the runtime
> DS> package is a significant "bloat" reduction. Moving them into -dev is not.
> DS> Making a third package -doc, containing the info, doc, and demo sections
> DS> now found in the runtime package makes the most sense. Thus a
> DS> non-development system can still have complete documentation when needed
> DS> without either the runtime or the -dev packages installed. (screw 'em if
> DS> they can't find it ;-)
> "My" conclusion:
> You can't build demos source if the -dev package isn't installed. And the
> info documentation is *really* for developper. This package contain
> libraries, so an end user don't need to know how to program this library.
YOU think the info docs are only for developers. I think anyone could wish
to read and understand them. I'm not sure I understand your last sentance.
What does the fact that the runtime contains libraries have to do with
programming the library?
More to the point, what did you find wrong with my solution?
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux" _-_-_-_-_-_-
_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 _-
_- Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road _-
_- e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-
_-_-_-_-_- Released under the GNU Free Documentation License _-_-_-_-
available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/