1 |
Dnia 2014-08-28, o godz. 00:37:48 |
2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> napisał(a): |
3 |
|
4 |
> 3. ulm wants to reintroduce dohtml in an eclass for people who want to |
5 |
> use it. I'd rather cover it with warnings signs and tell people not to |
6 |
> touch it. IMHO a better replacement is the plain 'docinto html; dodoc |
7 |
> -r ...', possibly with some extra filtering applied before or after |
8 |
> install. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> What do you think? |
11 |
|
12 |
One more thing came up on IRC: einstalldocs (and therefore the default |
13 |
install function) installing README* that catches README.html as well. |
14 |
I'd rather not add more dohtml-like magic and say it's fine. |
15 |
|
16 |
Or more generically, it's fine to install HTML docs outside |
17 |
${docdir}/html -- as long as docdir ends up being sane. That is: |
18 |
|
19 |
1. single or small number of not-really-linked-together HTML files may |
20 |
land in ${docdir} directly, |
21 |
|
22 |
2. trees of HTML files (references, handbooks etc.) should land |
23 |
in a subdirectory of docdir (via docinto; dodoc), |
24 |
|
25 |
3. ${docdir}/html is recommended for commonly used HTML documentation |
26 |
(the reference manual, for example). However, packages may use other |
27 |
subdirectories if they see fit (e.g. when there's more than one tree of |
28 |
HTML docs). |
29 |
|
30 |
What do you think? |
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
Best regards, |
34 |
Michał Górny |