Hi Sean, On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 07:39:26AM +0100, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello Nicholas, > > Nicholas D Steeves <nsteeves@gmail.com> writes: > > > The emacs-ivy-doc repo is going to be easier because I can rebase as > > necessary before the initial push. Would you like to see all the docs > > in emacs-ivy-doc, or only the two non-free ones? > > This is up to your judgement. If they are very small, it might be > better to have them in the main archive. Hmm... I'm going to have to investigate this some more. From what I've read, the info pages (and optionally the man pages) are intended to be built from those non-free sources. This makes it seem like emacs-ivy-doc should contain the bulk of the documentation; however, there is one exception that ivy.el references. > > By the way, how soon do we (as pkg-emacsen) have to implement policy > > 12.4, and can you provide an example of the style we're going to use? > > I don't think that anyone on the team has done any work on this. Feel > free to take the initiative, if it interests you. Maybe later? :-) At this point in time I'd like to focus on my RFPs and ITPs. It's something that will need to be done, but it seems a bit early still. > > Do we also provide the .org and .md markdown files or convert > > everything using pandoc and install that? > > I would say that the HTML alone would be enough. Hmm, I've decided to strip documentation from emacs-ivy for now, because I recently read (on debian-devel) that html documentation is supposed to go in the -doc package and not the primary package. If, as I wait for the conversation to develop on -devel, a user files a request for documentation bug, then I'll rename it as an ITP for emacs-ivy-doc and will have to prioritise all of this. Cheers, Nicholas P.S. The git repo is an a reasonable state and I think it might be time for a preliminary RFS.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature