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

Re: Doc-base section hierarchy (was: Re: doc-base, menu, and policy (Re: Debian Policy uploaded))

On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 11:58:15PM +0100, Robert Luberda wrote:
> I fully agree. Even though the newest doc-base tries to map old sections 
> into new ones while generating control files in 
> /var/lib/doc-base/documents, I really think that the doc-base and the menu 
> hierarchies should be separated, however I need some help with this. If you 
> have some ideas, how the hierarchy should be changed, I'm looking forward 
> to hearing them.

Thanks for your efforts on this.

I've a few comments only the use case I've found a while ago and that
concerns doc-base sections. Namely, the use case was were to put the
automatically generated API documentations for OCaml libraries in the
archive. Though narrow as it seems, I found stupid to have to
reimplement a browsing tool for that while I can use doc-base. However,
the most suitable hierarchy I could fine back them was
Application/Programming (though now I see that Programming itself would
have been a better choice). However, the point is of course that the
section is too broad.

So ...

>  Programming (704)               => Programming or Programming/$language

Programming/OCaml would be better than the status quo for me.

But actually I'm not sure if my case would deserve an even finer
sub-category such as Programming/$language/ApiReference or similar. What
do you think?

Would it be possible to let package maintainers to refine some leaf


Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what?
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
(15:56:48)  Zack: e la demo dema ?    /\    All one has to do is hit the
(15:57:15)  Bac: no, la demo scema    \/    right keys at the right time

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: