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

Re: documentation types

On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 04:32:51PM +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> And I told you that you're wrong. There is _zero_ reference to
> documentation packages, doc-base, install-docs or anything else in the
> quote you replied to. It only spoke about _displaying_ the
> documentation.

The thread is about documentation packages. Don't pick my quote, I was
answering to the thread question which basicly says "I want to ship
documentation with this library, how should I do it?"

> And yes, displaying is the most important step. If there are multiple,
> well-established viewers for a documentation format (as you have
> acknowledged), then it makes sense to think about adopting Debian's
> document handling system for that format. After all, Debian is about

There's no "Debian document handling system" there is a "Debian document
registration system" which is not quite the same.

> serving the users. It's not the users who should bend to what is
> convinient for Debian.

I didn't say otherwise.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: