| 1 |
On Sat, 2003-07-12 at 11:25, Spider wrote: |
| 2 |
> Well, this is an no-issue issue, from the beginning doc was used to |
| 3 |
> differentiate wether to build the (costly, dependencywise and timewise) |
| 4 |
> .ps, pdf. html and other versions of documentation from the original |
| 5 |
> templates, actions which required jade, tetex and a lot of cpupower, or |
| 6 |
> wether to just install the basic pregenerated documentation. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> This too goes for source-included things like gtk-doc (library |
| 9 |
> documentation) |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> So, any case that uses "doc" to differentiate manpages or general |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
OK, so "doc" is only to separate developer documentation? Is that a fair |
| 15 |
definition? If so then I think the description of the useflag should be |
| 16 |
modified. Because right now, it is very vague saying "Add Extra |
| 17 |
Documentation". |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> To separate devleoper-documentation is a common thing to do, since API's |
| 20 |
> tend to change less frequently, so for say java 1.2.* could well use |
| 21 |
> the documentation from any java-1.2 standard + some errata |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> I'd suggest marking all packages that separate end-user documentation |
| 24 |
> with USE="doc" are flawed and should be fixed. All those who have extra |
| 25 |
> developer-centric documentation (api, examples and so on) could well |
| 26 |
> have them separated in RDEPEND="doc? (${PN}-api-documentation )" |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
That seems reasonable. I just want clarify how we should handle docs. I |
| 29 |
guess this is acceptable way. Just wondering why the docs aren't |
| 30 |
actually included in the package themselves. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Cheers, |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Alastair 'liquidx' Tse |
| 35 |
>> Gentoo Developer |
| 36 |
>> http://www.liquidx.net/ | http://dev.gentoo.org/~liquidx/ |
| 37 |
>> GPG Key : http://dev.gentoo.org/~liquidx/liquidx_gentoo_org.asc |
| 38 |
>> FingerPrint : 579A 9B0E 43E8 0E40 EE93 BB1C 38CE 1C7B 3907 14F6 |
Archives