Adam Di Carlo wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Julian Gilbey) writes:
> >[Me]
> >> Hmm. Interesting. So how do you use it? You *extend* the library?
> >> Or you just read about it? ;)
>
> > [...] (In fact, it's so readable that it's
> > been published as a book. Being written in CWEB means that you can
> > create TeXable output from the source code, which can be
> > pretty-printed.)
My 'crucial questions' would be:
- is the amount of documentation (prose) significantly larger
than
that of code (apparently, otherwise there would not be the
book)
- what can be done without non-standard processing steps
- can it be built with just make
- can user read it without knowing literate programming,
should there be a ready made html version available
- what the installer expects to happen
- since this is a binary package user must be prepared to have
some binaries and documentation, but he [ha, ha!] is not
necessarily expecting anything in /usr/src, it may be e.g.
a link to separate partition, which is nearly full
(I used to have this), and when the partition gets full your
installation goes haywire
> Yes, I'm familiar with the concept of literate programming. Nice to
> see a nice real world example. My *practical* objection w/ literate
> programming is that programmers generally don't write the best
> documentation. ;)
Only rarely can a programmer, or anybody else, create
documentation
of such caliber that the same documentation is good for creating
the
software, maintaining it and using it. Also the maintainer has the
added burden of having to consider the structure of both the
documentation
and the sw at the same time when doing changes.
> >> My gut feeling would be under /usr/doc/sgb/examples, I suppose.
>
> > OK, I'll go for that, thanks. Would it be out of order to include a
> > symlink /usr/doc/sgb/src -> /usr/doc/sgb/examples? I hope not.
>
> Sounds good to me... why not!
>
> Also, another ok suggestion: /usr/src/sgb, and symlink
> /usr/doc/sgb/src -> ../../src/sgb
>
> It really come down to the "principle of least suprise".
I would have the symlink the other way, create it in postinst,
and silently accept if no link could be created
t.aa
