RE: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

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

RE: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

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

RE: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

>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? > >

RE: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

>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? > >

Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

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

Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

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

Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

* 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

Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

* 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

Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

> "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?".

Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

> "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?"

RE: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

>| > - 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

Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

* (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

RE: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

>| > - 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

Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

* (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

RE: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

>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'

RE: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

>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'

Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

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

Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

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

Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

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

Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

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

Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

> "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]>

Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

> "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]

Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

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

Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

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

Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

[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

Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

[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

Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

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

Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

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

Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

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

Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

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

Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

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

Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

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

Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

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

Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

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

Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

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

Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

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

Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

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

Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

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

Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

At 08 Nov 2001 15:34:24 -0800, Bill Wohler wrote: > The precedent is for /usr/share/javadoc. javadoc isn't only English. If we consider international documents, it's better that directory have subdirectories for each language. For example, /usr/share/javadoc// /* language is one of e

Re: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

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

RE: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

>- 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

[summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

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

RE: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

>- 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

[summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

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

Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bill Wohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Why not use /usr/share/doc/javadoc instead? > > I think it a better place, easier to find and more consistent. > > Ola, > > The precedent is for /usr/share/jav

Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bill Wohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Why not use /usr/share/doc/javadoc instead? > > I think it a better place, easier to find and more consistent. > > Ola, > > The precedent is for /usr/share/ja

Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Nov 03, 2001 at 03:04:36PM +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote: > > We would like your opinion about this proposition: > > > > Package documentation usualy goes in a distinct subdirectory under > > /usr/

[Fwd: Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation]

So should this.. -- Mike Gratton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Leader in leachate production and transmission since 1976. --- Begin Message --- Kevin A. Burton wrote: Um, why would I want to distinguish api documentation from "other" documentation? Because most people won't care ab

[Fwd: Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation]

Erm, this should have gone to the list.. -- Mike Gratton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Leader in leachate production and transmission since 1976. --- Begin Message --- Guillaume Rousse wrote: We propose instead to install it under a distinct subdirectory under a new /usr/share/api

Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Why not use /usr/share/doc/javadoc instead? > I think it a better place, easier to find and more consistent. Ola, The precedent is for /usr/share/javadoc. Consider /usr/share/man and /usr/share/info. Are there others? The directories under /usr/

Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Nov 03, 2001 at 03:04:36PM +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote: > > We would like your opinion about this proposition: > > > > Package documentation usualy goes in a distinct subdirectory under > > /usr

[Fwd: Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation]

So should this.. -- Mike Gratton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Leader in leachate production and transmission since 1976. --- Begin Message --- Kevin A. Burton wrote: >>Um, why would I want to distinguish api documentation from "other" >>documentation? > > Because most p

[Fwd: Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation]

Erm, this should have gone to the list.. -- Mike Gratton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Leader in leachate production and transmission since 1976. --- Begin Message --- Guillaume Rousse wrote: > We propose instead to install it under a distinct subdirectory under a new >

Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Why not use /usr/share/doc/javadoc instead? > I think it a better place, easier to find and more consistent. Ola, The precedent is for /usr/share/javadoc. Consider /usr/share/man and /usr/share/info. Are there others? The directories under /usr

Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

On Sat, Nov 03, 2001 at 03:04:36PM +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote: > We would like your opinion about this proposition: > > Package documentation usualy goes in a distinct subdirectory under > /usr/share/doc, as established by FHS. Java software also comes with > javadoc-generated api documentati

Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin A. Burton) writes: > Robert Bihlmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Um, why would I want to distinguish api documentation from "other" > > documentation? For libraries the former is the most important information > > there is ... > > Because most people won't care about

Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin A. Burton) writes: > Because most people won't care about API documentation. If I want to download > and use KOffice I obviously don't care about API documentation. Do you know of any Unix installation that comes without sections 2 and 3? ;-) In regards to your pre

Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin A. Burton) writes: > Because most people won't care about API documentation. If I want to download > and use KOffice I obviously don't care about API documentation. Do you know of any Unix installation that comes without sections 2 and 3? ;-) In regards to your pr

Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bill Wohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > At first I was going to defend /usr/share/doc//api, but > having something like /usr/share/javadoc/ would be a nice > corollary to /usr/share/man. > > > - name 'apidoc' is not specificaly related to jav

Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Robert Bihlmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Guillaume Rousse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > - distinction with standard documentation > > Um, why would I want to distinguish api documentation from "other" > documentation? For libraries the for

Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bill Wohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > At first I was going to defend /usr/share/doc//api, but > having something like /usr/share/javadoc/ would be a nice > corollary to /usr/share/man. > > > - name 'apidoc' is not specificaly related to ja

Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Robert Bihlmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Guillaume Rousse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > - distinction with standard documentation > > Um, why would I want to distinguish api documentation from "other" > documentation? For libraries the fo

Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

Guillaume Rousse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > - distinction with standard documentation Um, why would I want to distinguish api documentation from "other" documentation? For libraries the former is the most important information there is ... -- Robbe signature.ng Description: PGP signature

Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

Guillaume Rousse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > - distinction with standard documentation Um, why would I want to distinguish api documentation from "other" documentation? For libraries the former is the most important information there is ... -- Robbe signature.ng

Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

At first I was going to defend /usr/share/doc//api, but having something like /usr/share/javadoc/ would be a nice corollary to /usr/share/man. > - name 'apidoc' is not specificaly related to java, could also be used by > other languages And yes, I'd use javadoc too. Otherwise, we might j

Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Guillaume Rousse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > We would like your opinion about this proposition: > > Package documentation usualy goes in a distinct subdirectory under > /usr/share/doc, as established by FHS. Java software also comes with > javado

Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

At first I was going to defend /usr/share/doc//api, but having something like /usr/share/javadoc/ would be a nice corollary to /usr/share/man. > - name 'apidoc' is not specificaly related to java, could also be used by > other languages And yes, I'd use javadoc too. Otherwise, we might

Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Guillaume Rousse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > We would like your opinion about this proposition: > > Package documentation usualy goes in a distinct subdirectory under > /usr/share/doc, as established by FHS. Java software also comes with > javad