On 22-Apr-07, 17:01 (CDT), Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 2. Why a seperate -doc? API docs should be part of the -dev package.
>
> In practice, such attitudes are commonly expressed as RTSL. (Read The
> Source, Luke). That does NOT encourage upstream usage of Debian as a
> distro.
>
> Is man (3) really so hard for a DD to provide?
>
> > I'm going to guess that for *most* libraries, the docs are a trivial
> > part of the size of the -dev package. For those with significant
> > documentation, sure, a seperate -doc makes sense, just as we do now.
>
> I think libraries should be encouraged to provide significant
> documentation - what we have now is simply not enough.
You seem to be arguing that the man pages should be in the core library
package, yes? My objection is against mandating a *separate* -doc
package. Separate doc packages make sense when the documentation is
a significant portion of the total binary package size, and thus
duplicating them in each binary package (rather than a single arch-all
package) causes more hardship on the archive and mirrors than having a
new packages causes the Packages file.
As for putting the docs in the core library file, I don't actually buy
your argument. The *VAST* majority of a libraries users are never going
to look at the man pages for that library. People who need the man pages
are going to have the -dev installed, or can easily install it. I don't
see why upstreams needs this.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
