Re: Shipping .texi sources in binary packages (was: unidentified subject)
On 20 Oct 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Santiago> It seems to me that the general rule that source belongs to
> Santiago> the source package should apply here.
>
> No. HTML is not a good format for printing. dvi files are not
> quite as portable as one would like (due to font issues)
The purpose of shipping the docs in binary packages is to made them
available to be read, not to be printed.
(BTW: What font issues are you talking about?)
> Santiago> We should already ship .html as this is our preferred
> Santiago> documentation format (at least policy says so). Do we
> Santiago> really need to make things more complex than they are now?
>
> Yes. With SGML, I can choose plain text, HTML, tex,
> postscript, or another SGML DTD. This is functionality that is not
> crrently guaranteed.
I don't understand.
Do you propose that .sgml replaces .html as our preferred
documentation format in the long run?
Do you propose to convert all .texi to .sgml?
> Santiago> Why don't we concentrate instead in finding a standard
> Santiago> procedure for registering html docs, our (already)
> Santiago> preferred documentation format?
>
> That too is a useful thing to have. So is an easy way of
> generating nice, printable, documents. I should not have to download
> the whole source just for a teeny .texi or .sgml file.
Well, .texi are not usually very "tiny" either.
We could make them available via uploads, but without including
them in any binary-package (using "byhand" in the .changes file).
and we could have some doc tree at ftp.debian.org and a tool to retrieve
the latest source from a given package.
If we include the .info, the .html and the .texi in binary packages, I'm
afraid we will the first Linux release to require DVDs for distribution.
--
"dcc79389fecd3d1b91c8f4202c6d8361" (a truly random sig)
Reply to: