Ainsi parlait Robert Bihlmeyer : > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Pimlott) writes: > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 12:21:57PM +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote: > > > According to discussion, it seems we agreed on following points: > > > > I didn't realize there was consensus, [...] > > Me neither. For the record, I'm also dissenting with Guillaume's > "consensus", mainly for the reasons Andrew outlined. See my previous > mails on this subject. Sorry, my fault. Let's try again then :-)
Initial proposition had two points: 1) always split javadoc-generated documentation in another package 2) standardize javadoc location to cross-link generated documentation There have been opposition againt 1), so lets' drop it. But opposition against 2) seems to only concerns creation of a specific /usr/share/javadoc directory. However, i am not convinced we can achieve 2) without 1): - if bar's javadoc is sometimes part of bar-doc package, sometimes part of bar-anythingelse package, then packager would have to check for it instead of just using a bar-javadoc build requirement - the same apply for precise file location in /usr/share/doc: some will be in /usr/share/doc/bar-doc/(api,apidoc,javadoc), some in /usr/share/doc/bar-anythingelse/(api,apidoc,javadoc) - directories names in /usr/share/doc use version number (on rpm systems, i don't know for Debian), so it is yet another problem As there have been some acknowledgement of interest of cross-linking, tough, let's try a third round of discussion on this topic... -- Guillaume Rousse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPG key http://lis.snv.jussieu.fr/~rousse/gpgkey.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
