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

Bug#7890: [AMENDMENT] Policy manual contradicts itself about including docs



      PROPOSAL: Policy manual contradicts itself about including docs
      ---------------------------------------------------------------
                  Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>
                             $Revision: 1.2 $


Copyright Notice
----------------

     Copyright © 1998 by Manoj Srivastava.

     You are given permission to redistribute this document and/or modify
     it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
     the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option)
     any later version.

     On Debian GNU/Linux systems, the complete text of the GNU General
     Public License can be found in `</usr/doc/copyright/GPL>'.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1. Introduction
---------------

     The following paragraphs are somewhat contradictory:

        * If a package comes with large amounts of documentation which many
          users of the package will not require you should create a
          separate binary package to contain it, so that it does not take
          up disk space on the machines of users who do not need or want it
          installed.

        * If your package comes with extensive documentation in a markup
          format that can be converted to various other formats you should
          if possible ship HTML versions in the binary package, in the
          directory `/usr/doc/package' or its subdirectories.

     Which begs the question about what to do if both conditions are true?


1.1. Deadline for tabling the discussion
----------------------------------------

     I decided to use a minimal period for discussion of one week, seeing
     that the discussion has already been held on this issue for a length
     of time. This means that the discussion on this proposal ends on
     October 21st, 1998.


1.2. People Seconding the Proposal
----------------------------------

     1.   Adam P. Harris <apharris@burrito.onshore.com>

     2.   Santiago Vila Doncel <sanvila@unex.es>



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


2. Proposed changes and Rationale
---------------------------------


2.1. Change
-----------

     The proposal is to change the wording in the second paragraph to say _
     ship HTML versions in _a_ binary package_, instead of _ ship HTML
     versions in _the_ binary package_.

- ship HTML versions in the binary package, in the directory
- /usr/doc/package or its subdirectories.
+ ship HTML versions in a binary package, under the directory
+ /usr/doc/<appropriate package> or its subdirectories.


2.2. Rationale
--------------

     The important thing here is that HTML docs should be _available_,
     which is not exactly the same as _included in the binary package_.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


     PROPOSAL: Policy manual contradicts itself about including docs
     Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>                $Revision: 1.2 $


--
 Cynic, n.: A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are,
 not as they ought to be.  Hence the custom among the Scythians of
 plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision. Ambrose Bierce,
 "The Devil's Dictionary"
Manoj Srivastava  <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E

Reply to: