On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 05:55:36AM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 12:00:37AM +0100, David Nečas (Yeti) wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 02:44:21PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [...] > > libglade developers do not produce any binary packages. > > > > Their product does come with examples. > > > > Requiring that the examples have to be included in full in > > the text of the manual instead of in a compilable form as > > standalone files is silly. > > You took it back to the point. I think metaphors don't help much here. > The question is whether usage examples belong to the documentation or > not. As we see, this question is debatable. Personally, I'd side clearly > with the "yes" side.
Definitely, but I'd put only snippets and smaller examples to the manual itself. I hope we agree it makes no sense to put the source of gtk-demo-like programs to the manual. So we have the following possibilities: 1. Convince all OS vendors to stop making binary packages and libglade devs to make these packages instead, with examples included. 2. Convince all OS vendors to include code samples in the devel/devel-doc package. 3. Add a note to a prominent place in the docs that the source code comes with examples, and let people grab the real thing instead of what OS vendors decide to distribute. Yeti -- Whatever. _______________________________________________ gtk-app-devel-list mailing list gtk-app-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-app-devel-list
