Re: should XML/SGML documentation ship with sources
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 05:58:17PM -0600, Adam DiCarlo wrote:
>
> The consensus we arrived at on debian-doc list (with the exception of
> Colin Walters) was that XML/SGML source is in fact source and
> shouldn't be there bloating binary pkgs.
Thanks for summarizing. I should have responded to debian-policy (I
bounced my message to here for archival purpose.)
> Just FYI. Not that I'm proposing this as a policy item, although it
> might become DDP policy, who knows.
Actually, that is a part of what me and Javi are going after while we are
making draft for the DDP-policy now.
"All DDP-document shall supply plain text, multi-file html, PS, and PDF
but no SGML source." is in tentative DDP-policy.
This DDP-policy is nowhere near public release but it is available at
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/ddp-policy/ddp-policy.en.html for
people concered to make comments. All Debian developers can access its
source in DDP CVS and are welcomed to add alternatives views there. Our
plan is, once all options are laid down, we want to come to the consensus
within debian-doc and propose it to debian-policy. This DDP-policy
things happened when Adam was quiet on debian-doc.
Because of the nature of documetation, ddp-policy will likely be more of
the "Best Practice" guide with many "should"s, I think.
--
~\^o^/~~~ ~\^.^/~~~ ~\^*^/~~~ ~\^_^/~~~ ~\^+^/~~~ ~\^:^/~~~ ~\^v^/~~~ +++++
Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org> Cupertino CA USA, GPG-key: A8061F32
.''`. Debian Reference: post-installation user's guide for non-developers
: :' : http://qref.sf.net and http://people.debian.org/~osamu
`. `' "Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software" --- Social Contract
Reply to: