Re: documentation types
Hendrik Sattler <email@example.com> writes:
> Am Freitag, 10. Februar 2006 12:36 schrieb Daniel Leidert:
>> Am Freitag, den 10.02.2006, 12:09 +0100 schrieb Hendrik Sattler:
>> > I about packaging a library that ships an API reference in docbook SGML
>> > and provides manual build targets for PDF, PS and HTML.
>> > Is there any preference on which type should be included in the -dev
>> > package?
>> Why don't you move it into -doc packages, which is IMHO more common
>> practice? You could make a -doc-html, -doc-ps and -doc-pdf, which all
>> provide -doc and then let the -dev package recommend or suggest the -doc
>> package. So the user can choose the format he prefers.
> For one file?
> Another alternative, maybe: include only the .sgml file and
> Suggests: docbook-utils
Well, i personally like very much to have all (well a lot of) my
documentation accessible, and searchable by dwww. For this I would want
the html to be already generated, and I'm probably not the only
one. Why not just create a -doc package that contain the tree of them,
or may be only pdf and html (but there will be people to disagree with
me on this).