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

documentation for "Convenience copies of code" redundant regeneration?

My package's source tarball contains "Convenience copies of code" which I 
delete and instead link to the external library. Also in the source tarball is 
documentation for the convenience library in the form of .pdf and .html copied 
from the same source by the upsteam.

I am the maintainer of the external library, and there, I regenerate this 
documentation from source, at the cost of considerable trouble.

But in the package I am working on I simply delete references to the  
"Convenience copies of code" and its documentation and refer to it's location 
in the external package.

Question: Must I regenerate this Convenience copies of Documentation from 
source, only to delete it, and refer to in externally, (where it IS 
regenerated from source). That is must I do a purely pro forma regeneration 
from source of something that is just going to be deleted and never used, of 
something that is regenerated from source in an external package?

If it is OK, in this case, to just delete the pdfs and html, where should I 
note the problem?

Paul Elliott                               1(512)837-1096
pelliott@BlackPatchPanel.com               PMB 181, 11900 Metric Blvd Suite J
http://www.free.blackpatchpanel.com/pme/   Austin TX 78758-3117

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: