On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 06:39:38PM +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote: > Ainsi parlait Andrew Pimlott : > > What exactly do you mean by "standard documentation"? I assume you > > mean "non-developer documentation". In this case, you are > > presenting a false division, because "developer documentation" is > > not synonymous with "javadoc documentation". Many (probably most) > > libraries have developer documentation that is not javadoc. > > You're right there, but: > - distinguishing between user and developper documentation is a subjective > choice, whereas javadoc-generated vs hand-written doc is objective.
But packaging is all about subjective choices: what will make the system most convenient for the user? Debian packaging is about taking a piece of software and making it work nicely with the rest of the system, not running an auto-package script. That's why Debian developers make the big bucks. :-) > Please keep in mind than this proposition comes from jpackage project, so > usal debian convention don't automatically apply. Right. But whatever makes it into Debian ought to use Debian conventions. > And the goal is precisely > to be able to install part of the documentation (what you need to run the > application) without having to install everything (what you need to extend > the application). I agree that if there is a package with so much documentation that installing it all might take up too much space. In that case, separate -doc and -javadoc packages would be ok. But Debian tends to discourage "frivilous" package splitting, so this should only be done as needed. Andrew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
