364F 80E6
>-Original Message-
>From: GOMEZ Henri
>Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 10:45 AM
>To: debian-java@lists.debian.org
>Subject: RE: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation
>
>
>>Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>>
>>> Debian do
904A 364F 80E6
>-Original Message-
>From: GOMEZ Henri
>Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 10:45 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation
>
>
>>Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>>
>>> Debian do
>Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>
>> Debian doesn't use RPM as part of the package management
>> infrastructure, and any limitations of RPM is therefore irrelevant to
>> how Debian should handle javadoc, and (in general) Debian policy.
>>
>> So, again: why should Debian policy care about RPM systems?
>
>
>Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>
>> Debian doesn't use RPM as part of the package management
>> infrastructure, and any limitations of RPM is therefore irrelevant to
>> how Debian should handle javadoc, and (in general) Debian policy.
>>
>> So, again: why should Debian policy care about RPM systems?
>
>
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
Debian doesn't use RPM as part of the package management
infrastructure, and any limitations of RPM is therefore irrelevant to
how Debian should handle javadoc, and (in general) Debian policy.
So, again: why should Debian policy care about RPM systems?
Only in the context of
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> Debian doesn't use RPM as part of the package management
> infrastructure, and any limitations of RPM is therefore irrelevant to
> how Debian should handle javadoc, and (in general) Debian policy.
>
> So, again: why should Debian policy care about RPM systems?
Only in
* GOMEZ Henri
| >Why should Debian policy care about rpm systems?
|
| /usr/share/javadoc , at least on rpm systems
No need to shout, I am able to read. Also, you didn't answer the
question.
| Who speak about debian ?
This is a list which is called debian-java@lists.debian.org, which
mea
* GOMEZ Henri
| >Why should Debian policy care about rpm systems?
|
| /usr/share/javadoc , at least on rpm systems
No need to shout, I am able to read. Also, you didn't answer the
question.
| Who speak about debian ?
This is a list which is called [EMAIL PROTECTED], which
means that it
> "Henri" == GOMEZ Henri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Henri> Who speak about debian ?
Henri,
You're posting to a Debian mailing list in case you hadn't noticed.
I'm a little distributed by a number of posters tendency to forget
this.
--
Stephen
"And what do we burn apart from witches?".
> "Henri" == GOMEZ Henri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Henri> Who speak about debian ?
Henri,
You're posting to a Debian mailing list in case you hadn't noticed.
I'm a little distributed by a number of posters tendency to forget
this.
--
Stephen
"And what do we burn apart from witches?"
>| > - directories names in /usr/share/doc use version number
>(on rpm systems, i
>| > don't know for Debian), so it is yet another problem
>|
>| I had forgotten that feature of rpm. Maybe that's a reason to use
>| /usr/share/javadoc , at least on rpm systems.
>
>Why should Debian policy care a
* (Andrew Pimlott)
| > - directories names in /usr/share/doc use version number (on rpm systems, i
| > don't know for Debian), so it is yet another problem
|
| I had forgotten that feature of rpm. Maybe that's a reason to use
| /usr/share/javadoc , at least on rpm systems.
Why should Debian p
>| > - directories names in /usr/share/doc use version number
>(on rpm systems, i
>| > don't know for Debian), so it is yet another problem
>|
>| I had forgotten that feature of rpm. Maybe that's a reason to use
>| /usr/share/javadoc , at least on rpm systems.
>
>Why should Debian policy care
* (Andrew Pimlott)
| > - directories names in /usr/share/doc use version number (on rpm systems, i
| > don't know for Debian), so it is yet another problem
|
| I had forgotten that feature of rpm. Maybe that's a reason to use
| /usr/share/javadoc , at least on rpm systems.
Why should Debian
>On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 07:14:50PM +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
>> 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'
>On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 07:14:50PM +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
>> 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'
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 07:14:50PM +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
> 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
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 07:14:50PM +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
> 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
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 reco
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 rec
> "Max" == Max Kellermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Max> Why can't package X-doc put the documentation under
Max> /usr/share/doc/X instead of /usr/share/doc/X-doc?
There was a proposal in debian-devel from Anthony Towns which
completely addresses your issues.
See <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Max" == Max Kellermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Max> Why can't package X-doc put the documentation under
Max> /usr/share/doc/X instead of /usr/share/doc/X-doc?
There was a proposal in debian-devel from Anthony Towns which
completely addresses your issues.
See <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2001/11/26 18:55
> I agree that if there is a package with so much documentation that
> installing it all might take up too much space. In that case,
> separate -doc and -javadoc packages would be ok. But Debian tends
> to discourage "frivilous" package splitting, so this should only be
> done
On 2001/11/26 18:55
> I agree that if there is a package with so much documentation that
> installing it all might take up too much space. In that case,
> separate -doc and -javadoc packages would be ok. But Debian tends
> to discourage "frivilous" package splitting, so this should only be
> don
[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
"co
[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
"c
Ainsi parlait GOMEZ Henri :
> >- should we contact FHS about this new directory (/usr/share/javadoc) ?
>
> Yes
Even if we switch to using standard /usr/share/doc instead, maybe we could
summarise relevant part of our policies to FHS anyway (usr/share/java, for
instance). Unless some Debian folks
Ainsi parlait GOMEZ Henri :
> >- should we contact FHS about this new directory (/usr/share/javadoc) ?
>
> Yes
Even if we switch to using standard /usr/share/doc instead, maybe we could
summarise relevant part of our policies to FHS anyway (usr/share/java, for
instance). Unless some Debian folks
On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 06:39:38PM +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
> Ainsi parlait Andrew Pimlott :
> > What exactly do you mean by "standard documentation"? I assume you
> > mean "non-developer documentation". In this case, you are
> > presenting a false division, because "developer documentation
Ainsi parlait Andrew Pimlott :
> 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, though that may be because
> I've been skimming lots of back mail. I don't think this pr
On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 06:39:38PM +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
> Ainsi parlait Andrew Pimlott :
> > What exactly do you mean by "standard documentation"? I assume you
> > mean "non-developer documentation". In this case, you are
> > presenting a false division, because "developer documentatio
Ainsi parlait Andrew Pimlott :
> 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, though that may be because
> I've been skimming lots of back mail. I don't think this p
On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 10:48:43AM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> But if we want to distinguish between doc and javadoc on the filesystem
> level I think it is good to separate it on the package level too.
Why? For example, glibc-doc contains both man and info files. The
only common reason for di
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, though that may be because
I've been skimming lots of back mail. I don't think this proposal
has much merit.
> - have standar
On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 10:48:43AM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> But if we want to distinguish between doc and javadoc on the filesystem
> level I think it is good to separate it on the package level too.
Why? For example, glibc-doc contains both man and info files. The
only common reason for d
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, though that may be because
I've been skimming lots of back mail. I don't think this proposal
has much merit.
> - have standa
On Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 10:33:50PM -0800, Bill Wohler wrote:
> Guillaume Rousse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > - which name to use for javadoc package ?
> > debian use -doc for their standard documentation package, so -javadoc would
> > be consistent
> > jpackage use -manual, so -javadoc would be
On Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 10:33:50PM -0800, Bill Wohler wrote:
> Guillaume Rousse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > - which name to use for javadoc package ?
> > debian use -doc for their standard documentation package, so -javadoc would
> > be consistent
> > jpackage use -manual, so -javadoc would b
Guillaume Rousse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - which name to use for javadoc package ?
> debian use -doc for their standard documentation package, so -javadoc would
> be consistent
> jpackage use -manual, so -javadoc would be less consistent (unless we switch
> to -doc also, of course)
-doc
>- should we contact FHS about this new directory (/usr/share/javadoc) ?
Yes
>- is cross-linking of javadoc an interesting/achievable feature ?
>When building foo package, depending of bar package, add -linkoffline
>/usr/share/javadoc/bar option to javadoc would provide
>cross-linked api
>docu
According to discussion, it seems we agreed on following points:
- have standard documentation and javadoc documentation in differents packages
- install javadoc documentation in /usr/share/javadoc/
Points which are still to decide:
- which name to use for javadoc package ?
debian use -doc for the
>- should we contact FHS about this new directory (/usr/share/javadoc) ?
Yes
>- is cross-linking of javadoc an interesting/achievable feature ?
>When building foo package, depending of bar package, add -linkoffline
>/usr/share/javadoc/bar option to javadoc would provide
>cross-linked api
>doc
According to discussion, it seems we agreed on following points:
- have standard documentation and javadoc documentation in differents packages
- install javadoc documentation in /usr/share/javadoc/
Points which are still to decide:
- which name to use for javadoc package ?
debian use -doc for th
43 matches
Mail list logo
