Re: ocaml-deb documentation packaging
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 10:06:30AM +0200, Georges Mariano wrote:
> Ralf Treinen wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 10:20:02AM +0200, Georges Mariano wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that it would be nice if documentation (I mean manuals, examples,
> > > tutorial and so on) will be (always!) packaged separately ...
> >
> > This is completely impractical since it would about double the number of
> > packages (just think of all the man pages).
>
> Right (of course), but I was thinking about "add-on" documentation, that is
> postscript/sgml/html and so on, (which, by the way, are much more large
> than manpages...)
> Man pages are particular as they can be seen as "console help"...
by policy, manpage have to come with each executable anyway, ...
> As an example, suppose that all users are very happy with bibtex2html and
> use it every day (this is the case ;-). The package comes with its html
> documentation (which is rather short because using bibtex2html is easy).
That is what we do anyway, are there package which have there docs in the same
package ? Which one, and what do their author has to say about this ?
> I can "serve" the bibtex2html doc across our local network by using a web
> server running doc-central Debian system. Ok, but why do I have to install
> the package "bibtex2html" on a linux box where no user have direct access
> ??
>
> In fact, there are lots of packages currently following the expected scheme
> (caml-doc, coq-doc, tetex-doc, samba-doc and so on), I was just saying that
> this splitting is not a question of documentation size and that it can be
> generalized as soon as packages came with tutorials, large examples and so
> on...
>
> I'm not sure that this will double the package number.
> try a "du -s *" in /usr/share/doc and you will see that only only
> (approx.) one third of the packages seems to have huge documentation.
>
> After all, I just suggest to try this scheme on debian-ocaml packages
> (if needeed)..
>
> > However the File
> > Hierarchy Standard imposes that everything that is
> > architecture-independent goes into /usr/share.
> don't see the problem...
Well, /usr/share is all arch independent stuff, and as such, it can be (NFS)
shared between lot of boxes ...
not sure how dpkg & co handle this though.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: