Re: lablgtk2 documentation...

[Stéphane Glondu <steph@glondu.net>]

Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> ... but frankly, it would be quite annoying to have two *different*
> binary packages to install to get the totality of the lablgtk2
> documentation we have to offer. [...]

We can have liblablgtk2-ocaml-doc recommends (or even depends on, even I
would not be fond of this) lablgtk2-tutorials.

> If, as I guess, tutorials are small, it is probably better to ship them
> directly from the lablgtk2 source tarball (yes, hence modifying it via
> "debian/rules get-orig-source" or something souch) and have both API ref
> and other doc end up in the liblablgtk2-ocaml-doc package.

They are ~ 1.7 MB installed.

I prefer to avoid tempering with upstream tarball if possible. Moreover,
I expect the tutorials to evolve much more slowly than lablgtk2 itself
(the "upstream" tarball of lablgtk2-doc has never changed since its
first upload in 2004.

> At that point, the old lablgtk2-doc source package can go.  If it must
> stay, I see little point in renaming its _source_ package name.

I made this proposal for uniformity, and to avoid confusion. Of course,
we could just keep the same source package name, but we have to find a
new binary package name.


Cheers,

-- 
Stéphane