> >- It would in theory let software like doc-base dynamically generate
> > the documentation formats the user desires after installation.
>
> The more I think about this idea of building on install, though, the
> more I think it's completely insane. At least until the XML/SGML
> builders out
On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 18:58, Adam DiCarlo wrote:
> The consensus we arrived at on debian-doc list (with the exception of
> Colin Walters) was that XML/SGML source is in fact source and
> shouldn't be there bloating binary pkgs.
FYI, I wasn't really against the consensus; just pointing out somethi
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 05:58:17PM -0600, Adam DiCarlo wrote:
>
> The consensus we arrived at on debian-doc list (with the exception of
> Colin Walters) was that XML/SGML source is in fact source and
> shouldn't be there bloating binary pkgs.
Thanks for summarizing. I should have responded to d
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 04:32:10PM -0600, Adam DiCarlo wrote:
>
> I have a question for further discussion, which I'm unsure about. May
> or may not be a policy issue.
>
> Is it a good practice for SGML or XML documentation to ship with
> source?
>
> Pros:
> - providing source lets contributor
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 10:44:18PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-12-08 at 17:32, Adam DiCarlo wrote:
> > I have a question for further discussion, which I'm unsure about. May
> > or may not be a policy issue.
> >
> > Is it a good practice for SGML or XML documentation to ship with
>
The consensus we arrived at on debian-doc list (with the exception of
Colin Walters) was that XML/SGML source is in fact source and
shouldn't be there bloating binary pkgs. Just FYI. Not that I'm
proposing this as a policy item, although it might become DDP policy,
who knows.
--
...Adam Di Car
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 11:23:41PM +1100, Brendan O'Dea wrote:
> >Is it a good practice for SGML or XML documentation to ship with
> >source?
>
> My preference would be to include the source plus both text and html
> renderings. This provides both convieniently pre-formated output for
> on-line v
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 04:32:10PM -0600, Adam DiCarlo wrote:
>Is it a good practice for SGML or XML documentation to ship with
>source?
My preference would be to include the source plus both text and html
renderings. This provides both convieniently pre-formated output for
on-line viewing plus t
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 04:32:10PM -0600, Adam DiCarlo wrote:
>
> I have a question for further discussion, which I'm unsure about. May
> or may not be a policy issue.
>
> Is it a good practice for SGML or XML documentation to ship with
> source?
>
I think you have retracted the question (i.e.
Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>- It would in theory let software like doc-base dynamically generate
> the documentation formats the user desires after installation.
The more I think about this idea of building on install, though, the
more I think it's completely insane. At least
On Sun, 2002-12-08 at 17:32, Adam DiCarlo wrote:
> I have a question for further discussion, which I'm unsure about. May
> or may not be a policy issue.
>
> Is it a good practice for SGML or XML documentation to ship with
> source?
>
> Pros:
> - providing source lets contributors make patches m
I have a question for further discussion, which I'm unsure about. May
or may not be a policy issue.
Is it a good practice for SGML or XML documentation to ship with
source?
Pros:
- providing source lets contributors make patches more easily
Cons:
- wastes disk space
- why bother, just get
12 matches
Mail list logo
