Hello Petr, On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 17:44, Petr Pudlak (Debian) <d...@pudlak.name> wrote: > Hi, > > the package I'm working on (eprover) contains LaTeX documentation that is > already compiled into PDF in the upstream tarball. However, since Debian > Policy states that the preferred format is HTML, I was thinking about > generating documentation also in HTML. I found a nice program, tex4ht, which
You could have a look to this article[1] about LaTeX conversion to html. [1] http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/index.php?view=latex_html > seems to work quite well. I have a few question though: > > 1) First, is it a good idea at all to create HTML documentation this way, or > is the PDF file enough? If yes then: Yes, it's good: I used it in pyopenssl (if you need references). > 2) The HTML page is quite large, ~300k, about the same size as the PDF. > Should I put it into a separate package or not? Evaluate if the whole doc dir needs to be in a different package: what it's size compared to the rest of the package? if it's the same or higher, then split out a -doc package, if not, leave in the binary package as is not. > 3) Should I state 'tex4ht' in build dependencies and rebuild the > documentation in debian/rules, or should I create it in advance and include > it as a diff/patch? (This might be a bit complicated as the generated > documentation contains PNG images of formulas, which diff/patch tools don't > like). Generate that doc in debian/rules file, so it's generated at each package build (but remember it's not needed to generate doc each time if it's a arch:any package, just once it's fine, on your machine). Regards, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
