On 12-05-26 at 06:11am, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > That underlying issue apart, contributions to documentation is much > > appreciated - both aimed at newcomers and existing users, and both > > editing old pieces and writing new stuff from scratch. > > what is so bad about cyclic build-dependencies to justify getting rid > of all documentation and possibly not restoring it before the wheezy > release? cdbs is architecture: all, and as Loïc hinted in bug#614536, > there is even a proposal that would break the cycle when bootstrapping > the first arch from source if all binaries get wiped out[1].
When we stopped generating documentation for CDBS binary package, the issue of cyclic build-dependency was the direct trigger, but the more important issue was (and still is) the documentation in source being severely outdated. Also, since documentation of CDBS is not technically tied to CDBS, I find it more elegant to completely avoid cyclic build-dependencies. If someone comes up with a way to maintain documentation inline in the CDBS snippets and extracted at build time, that would be awesome, and I would most likely favor the benefits of that over the elegancy of avoiding cyclic build-dependencies. Hope that helps, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
