[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: html documentation for kde

> If the images would be separated, it would require either a package for
> each single application, or that always get the images for all packages in
> a kde module even if you only install one. Both a bad idea.

I agree with this.

> So how about another solution A+B
> A) A special "html documentation package", containing the html
> documentation + the images, but that can't be installed together with the
> program.

I'm unhappy with this because this does not serve the original reason for 
packaging kdefoo-doc-html, i.e., if I'm a GNOME user (without khelpcenter) 
and I install kword, then I can't read the docbook docs and I can't even 
install the HTML docs.  But I realise this was meant in conjuction with (B), 
so reading on...

> B) Docbook documentation + images are together with the program
> always. If someone who installs the program want the html documentation,
> they are generated from the docbook at installation time (or later if so
> desired).

I'm a little uncomfortable with generating HTML docs at install time, since 
(1) it will require meinproc which is in kdelibs4-dev and would thus require 
a dependency on kdelibs4-dev and all the stuff it drags in, and (2) once 
you've installed kword and forgotten all about the installation questions 
(would you like HTML docs?), and in four months' time you decide you want to 
read the manual, it's not at all clear how to do this (i.e., that you have to 
dpkg-reconfigure kword).

> So in this scenario the html documentation package is only meant for
> installation on servers.

I'd be tempted to think that it's more common for a non-KDE user to install 
kword and want to read the docs than it would be for someone to have none of 
KDE on their system and want to read the docs; for most apps it's customary 
to read the docs on the machine that you're running the app on.

i.e., none of these solutions are particuarly good, but I believe the current 
situation (HTML docs installable with the app but missing images when the app 
is not present) is the least upsetting (apologies to Tim).

> After all, the html doc package is a bad idea if
> someone only want a single program, since you get documentation for all
> packages in a kde module.

Sure, I agree.  It was a choice between (1) koffice-doc-html as we have now, 
(2) bundle HTML docs with the original apps (which makes ordinary KDE users 
unhappy about wasted disk space), or (3) have lots of little kword-doc-html, 
kspread-doc-html, etc. packages (which makes debian people in general unhappy 
because of package bloat).  I chose (1) as what appeared to be the lesser of 

> And then you would really want to have the
> documentation in your own language. Not everyone speaks english.

Again agreed.  As (I think) I mentioned before, I'm not entirely sure what to 
do about this.  Having koffice-doc-html-de, etc etc leads again to package 
bloat, and bundling all translations in koffice-doc-html leads to very large 
packages as well as the rather undesirable situation that koffice can no 
longer be built from the source tarball (since the translations are not in 
the main koffice tree).



Ben Burton
benb@acm.org  |  bab@debian.org
Public Key: finger bab@db.debian.org

I think you have to know who you are, get to know the monster that
lives in your soul, dive deep into your soul and explore it. I don't want
to renounce my dark side. The truth has always held an enormous interest
for me. Everything is therapeutic, no matter what you do.
	- Tori Amos, Connection Magazine, 6/98

Reply to: