RE: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation
>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?
Shouldn't we use only
/usr/share/doc/ant-1.4.1/javadoc
/usr/share/doc/ant-1.4.1/manual
what's the difference between api, apidoc and 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
>I had forgotten that feature of rpm. Maybe that's a reason to use
>/usr/share/javadoc , at least on rpm systems.
Good :)
Reply to: