On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 12:09:55PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> PROPOSAL: Policy manual contradicts itself about including docs
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> $Revision: 1.2 $
>
>
> Copyright Notice
> ----------------
>
> Copyright © 1998 by Manoj Srivastava.
>
> You are given permission to redistribute this document and/or modify
> it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option)
> any later version.
>
> On Debian GNU/Linux systems, the complete text of the GNU General
> Public License can be found in `</usr/doc/copyright/GPL>'.
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> 1. Introduction
> ---------------
>
> The following paragraphs are somewhat contradictory:
>
> * If a package comes with large amounts of documentation which many
> users of the package will not require you should create a
> separate binary package to contain it, so that it does not take
> up disk space on the machines of users who do not need or want it
> installed.
>
> * If your package comes with extensive documentation in a markup
> format that can be converted to various other formats you should
> if possible ship HTML versions in the binary package, in the
> directory `/usr/doc/package' or its subdirectories.
>
> Which begs the question about what to do if both conditions are true?
>
>
> 1.1. Deadline for tabling the discussion
> ----------------------------------------
>
> I decided to use a minimal period for discussion of one week, seeing
> that the discussion has already been held on this issue for a length
> of time. This means that the discussion on this proposal ends on
> October 21st, 1998.
>
>
> 1.2. People Seconding the Proposal
> ----------------------------------
>
> 1. Adam P. Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> 2. Santiago Vila Doncel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> 2. Proposed changes and Rationale
> ---------------------------------
>
>
> 2.1. Change
> -----------
>
> The proposal is to change the wording in the second paragraph to say _
> ship HTML versions in _a_ binary package_, instead of _ ship HTML
> versions in _the_ binary package_.
>
> - ship HTML versions in the binary package, in the directory
> - /usr/doc/package or its subdirectories.
> + ship HTML versions in a binary package, under the directory
> + /usr/doc/<appropriate package> or its subdirectories.
>
>
> 2.2. Rationale
> --------------
>
> The important thing here is that HTML docs should be _available_,
> which is not exactly the same as _included in the binary package_.
I second this.
Should we add: If the documentation is generated from a meta language (like
sgml) it must ship in the doc binary package too.
Or have we this in the policy?
Grisu
--
Michael Bramer - a Debian Certified Linux Developer http://www.debian.org
PGP: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Linux Sysadmin -- Use Debian Linux
"A system without Perl is like a hockey game without a fight." -- Mitch Wright
