Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation
Ainsi parlait Robert Bihlmeyer :
> andrew@pimlott.ne.mediaone.net (Andrew Pimlott) writes:
> > On Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 12:21:57PM +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
> > > According to discussion, it seems we agreed on following points:
> >
> > I didn't realize there was consensus, [...]
>
> Me neither. For the record, I'm also dissenting with Guillaume's
> "consensus", mainly for the reasons Andrew outlined. See my previous
> mails on this subject.
Sorry, my fault. Let's try again then :-)
Initial proposition had two points:
1) always split javadoc-generated documentation in another package
2) standardize javadoc location to cross-link generated documentation
There have been opposition againt 1), so lets' drop it. But opposition
against 2) seems to only concerns creation of a specific /usr/share/javadoc
directory.
However, i am not convinced we can achieve 2) without 1):
- if bar's javadoc is sometimes part of bar-doc package, sometimes part of
bar-anythingelse package, then packager would have to check for it instead of
just using a bar-javadoc build requirement
- the same apply for precise file location in /usr/share/doc: some will be in
/usr/share/doc/bar-doc/(api,apidoc,javadoc), some in
/usr/share/doc/bar-anythingelse/(api,apidoc,javadoc)
- directories names in /usr/share/doc use version number (on rpm systems, i
don't know for Debian), so it is yet another problem
As there have been some acknowledgement of interest of cross-linking, tough,
let's try a third round of discussion on this topic...
--
Guillaume Rousse <rousse@ccr.jussieu.fr>
GPG key http://lis.snv.jussieu.fr/~rousse/gpgkey.html
Reply to: