Re: Unidentified subject! (fwd)
Hi,
[I'm including a CC to the -doc group, in case someone there
has a comment on this]
>>"Anthony" == Anthony C Zboralski <frantic@sct.fr> writes:
Anthony> On 22 Sep 1998, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
>> I think that the .texi source belongs in the package source. Why
>> make yet another package out of things when it's already there?
What other package? All that is suggested is that the
preferred source of the documentation be also included, so it may be
rendered into different formats; and the preferred document format,
HTML, be included as well.
Are you suggesting that the binary-all packages, which may
only contain shell scripts and perl scripts are redundant, since the
full text of the scripts is already there in the source package?
>> Perhaps there ought to be (ie, suggested by, but not required by
>> policy) a "debian/rules" target for creating the .dvi or .ps, whenif
>> the upstream Makefile doesn't perform that task adequately.
Anthony> oh well, it is normal to have to download 11Megs of source
Anthony> code to create the dvi files for egcs, libg++ and more..
You have a point.
Anthony> info files are okay but they are not printable. I work a lot
Anthony> and i save some time by reading docs in the subway or in my
Anthony> bed when my girlfriend is asleep.
I suggest that the preferred source format of the
documentation be also available. This means that we also ship
texinfo, tex, and sgml versions of the documentation, as well as HTML
formats (we may also ship man, info, ps formatted documentation too,
but the source and HTML should always be there).
manoj
--
If you stop to think about it, you're already dead.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: