Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

[andrew@pimlott.ne.mediaone.net (Andrew Pimlott)]

On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 07:14:50PM +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
> 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 

I'm not positive what you mean, but if you're talking about making
the packaging more automatic, I'm not sure it is really a big
concern.  All you need is a rule that says, the javadoc-generated
files go in package X.  If you're hoping for perfect automation,
well, I'm not sure that's a good goal.

> - 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)

Yes, it would probably be ideal for it to be under the "base"
package name.  Is this an issue with rpm?

> - directories names in /usr/share/doc use version number (on rpm systems, i 
> don't know for Debian), so it is yet another problem

I had forgotten that feature of rpm.  Maybe that's a reason to use
/usr/share/javadoc , at least on rpm systems.

Anderw