Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation
On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 06:39:38PM +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
> Ainsi parlait Andrew Pimlott :
> > What exactly do you mean by "standard documentation"? I assume you
> > mean "non-developer documentation". In this case, you are
> > presenting a false division, because "developer documentation" is
> > not synonymous with "javadoc documentation". Many (probably most)
> > libraries have developer documentation that is not javadoc.
>
> You're right there, but:
> - distinguishing between user and developper documentation is a subjective
> choice, whereas javadoc-generated vs hand-written doc is objective.
But packaging is all about subjective choices: what will make the
system most convenient for the user? Debian packaging is about
taking a piece of software and making it work nicely with the rest
of the system, not running an auto-package script. That's why
Debian developers make the big bucks. :-)
> Please keep in mind than this proposition comes from jpackage project, so
> usal debian convention don't automatically apply.
Right. But whatever makes it into Debian ought to use Debian
conventions.
> And the goal is precisely
> to be able to install part of the documentation (what you need to run the
> application) without having to install everything (what you need to extend
> the application).
I agree that if there is a package with so much documentation that
installing it all might take up too much space. In that case,
separate -doc and -javadoc packages would be ok. But Debian tends
to discourage "frivilous" package splitting, so this should only be
done as needed.
Andrew
Reply to: