Re: Shipping .texi sources in binary packages (was: unidentified subject)
In article <[🔎] 87r9w383eh.fsf@tiamat.datasync.com>, Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> writes:
>>> "Santiago" == Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> writes:
Santiago> The purpose of shipping the docs in binary packages is to
Santiago> made them available to be read, not to be printed.
> And the purpose of the proposed change to Policy is that the
> documentation be available in a format amenable to further
> manipulation, so that it may be coaxed into formats more to the
> liking of the user, or to be printed (I still prefer reading long
> documents on paper)
Yes yes yes yes. Source format is what someone is going to want, say,
if they feel like correcting a document and submitting a patch. Or
adapting the document for some other (unforseen purposes). And how
absurd it would be if someone asked, 'how do I print
/usr/doc/foo/blah.ps.gz' and we say, 'oh, /usr/doc is for viewing, not
for printing'.
Santiago> Do you propose that .sgml replaces .html as our preferred
Santiago> documentation format in the long run?
> Nope, nothing as radical as that. I just propose that of the
> primary (the preferred for for modification) happens to be sgml (or
> texi, or nroff, or whatever), then that be also available in *some*
> .deb package .
I agree, although I think it should be a "should" rather than a
"must".
.....A. P. Harris...apharris@onShore.com...<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Reply to: