Re: doc-base is hugely unloved; bug mass-filing needed?
On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 10:49:51PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 10:56:23AM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> > After years and years of waiting for packages to register their
> > documents with doc-base, and filing individual bugs with some (not all
> > -- I am not jidani, LOL) of those that didn't register, I am quite
> > frustrated:
> > So, out of 273 doc-containing packages on this system, just 70 bothered.
> > I feel a strong urge to put the commands in a script that will auto-file
> > a bug against any package in the output of the last command. How do
> > maintainers feel about that?
For these things in general, supplying lintian check is good idea.
But fundamental question of usefulness of doc-base needs to be asked.
But I think similar to Paul Wise for this doc-base. We should think
about migrating data format and offload tool maintenance to existing
tools just like what we are doing for FONT.
> Actually, it's significantly less useful - most developers use manpages, but
> I can't remember the last time I used the doc-base infrastructure to browse
> but on
> non-desktop systems, I don't think we install a doc-base browser by default,
> and I have never seen a text-mode browser for doc-base documentation that I
> found worth using because browsing to /usr/share/doc/$package is always
very true ...
> (Also, I just tried to use yelp on Ubuntu 10.04 to test out the user
> experience of looking for documentation provided by doc-base... Despite
> having rarian-compat and doc-base properly installed, and despite doc-base
> being an unmodified Debian package, *none* of the doc-base documentation
> appears to turn up when I search. Assuming this isn't an Ubuntu-specific
> bug, I think it needs to be fixed before you can expect much maintainer
> interest in providing new doc-base files.
This is yelp issue which I can reproduce in Debian/sid.
dhelp works fine (but requires to have httpd for seaching capability).