On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:22:40 -0500 Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You seem to be arguing that the man pages should be in the core > library package, yes? I would prefer a -doc package that covers the entire API in a comprehensive and detailed manner, registered with helper programs like dwww and/or devhelp. In limited cases (like perl) where the library itself is very small, a man (3) in the -dev would be sufficient IF it covers the complete API. > 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. Sorry, I didn't intend to give the impression that the man (3) would go into the libfooSONAME package, instead I expect it to be present in the -dev package. HOWEVER, with libraries like libfoo-perl, the documentation IS part of the core library file already - most perl libraries (/modules) do not have a -dev package, nor would they need one. Most would also not need a -doc package but some might. Perl documentation is trivial to generate when using POD. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgp2tEz4LwxUV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
