On 2/8/22 20:13, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 08. 02. 22 19:50, Petr Menšík wrote:
>> Is FESCO okay with bundled javascript libraries in similar
>> packages?
>
> FESCo/FPC does allow bundling. See e.g.
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling
>
> This is no different. Exce
On 08. 02. 22 19:50, Petr Menšík wrote:
Is FESCO okay with bundled javascript libraries in similar
packages?
FESCo/FPC does allow bundling. See e.g.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling
This is no different. Except what you describe is a lot of work for the sph
I prefer much more HTML documentation than PDF. While I try to make PDF
also available, HTML is more useful in offline situations, on a train
for example.
On 2/8/22 15:18, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 04:51:35PM +0100, Petr Menšík wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I maintain bind package,
On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 04:51:35PM +0100, Petr Menšík wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I maintain bind package, which generates html documentation using sphinx
> and sphinx_rtd_theme. I admit this format is quite popular. Once I have
> noticed that bind-doc package is quite big. When looking why, I have
> found n
This is indeed a can of worms.
A previous discussion on the packaging list[1] concluded that, despite the
common practice of packaging Sphinx-generated HTML documentation, there is
probably no practical way to do so without running afoul of guidelines about
bundled or precompiled JavaScript, CS
Hi!
I maintain bind package, which generates html documentation using sphinx
and sphinx_rtd_theme. I admit this format is quite popular. Once I have
noticed that bind-doc package is quite big. When looking why, I have
found not a small number of static copies were generated by
documentation proces
