Re: [RFC] Developer documentation packages.

2001-09-17 Thread Francesco P. Lovergine
On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 12:43:36PM -0500, David Starner wrote: On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 06:08:30PM +0200, Filip Van Raemdonck wrote: IMHO it would be better to provide HTML and text formats, together with the source format from where on the preferred document format can be generated. Yep.

Re: [RFC] Developer documentation packages.

2001-09-17 Thread Francesco P. Lovergine
On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 06:08:30PM +0200, Filip Van Raemdonck wrote: On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 04:48:12PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: It could be nice if all you send me a collection of ebooks you think is a must for a developer. Only HTML/PDF/PS/TXT formats.

Re: [RFC] Developer documentation packages.

2001-09-16 Thread Junichi Uekawa
Alan Shutko [EMAIL PROTECTED] immo vero scripsit doc-gen ebook-foo pdf That is a very interesting idea. I'd go for one... something like this ? (NB. not tested throughly, nor complete yet.) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer translate-docformat Description:

Re: [RFC] Developer documentation packages.

2001-09-16 Thread Junichi Uekawa
Roland Mas [EMAIL PROTECTED] immo vero scripsit So we'd have some sort of book-get package, like the controversial porn-get (which shares the characteristics you've described)? Heh, so we could indeed have book-get install packagename and have preferences for documentation format. Also,

Re: [RFC] Developer documentation packages.

2001-09-14 Thread Filip Van Raemdonck
On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 04:48:12PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: It could be nice if all you send me a collection of ebooks you think is a must for a developer. Only HTML/PDF/PS/TXT formats. ^^^ Why is that? I find PDF/PS formats to be

Re: [RFC] Developer documentation packages.

2001-09-14 Thread David Starner
On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 06:08:30PM +0200, Filip Van Raemdonck wrote: IMHO it would be better to provide HTML and text formats, together with the source format from where on the preferred document format can be generated. Yep. Instead of all these packages with ps and pdf files, whereever

Re: [RFC] Developer documentation packages.

2001-09-14 Thread Alan Shutko
David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yep. Instead of all these packages with ps and pdf files, whereever possible, why don't we just have the LaTeX/Texinfo/Tex/Docbook/whatever source, with instructions on how to build ps/pdf in README.Debian? Better yet, standardize a script used by all

[RFC] Developer documentation packages.

2001-09-13 Thread Francesco P. Lovergine
Hi folks. I think there is a fundamental lacks of `general' documentation for developers in Debian. I'd like to see some e-book available as packages under /usr/share/doc. E.g. an HTML reference or many e-books currently available at DevEdge, or many others - Thinking C/Java/C++?. Some e-books

Re: [RFC] Developer documentation packages.

2001-09-13 Thread David N. Welton
Francesco P. Lovergine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Some e-books are available also under Open Publication License. What do you think of a pseudo package `ebooks-dev' which collects as many guides, faqs and e-books as possible (in HTML format whenever possible)? Is this a well-known question?

Re: [RFC] Developer documentation packages.

2001-09-13 Thread Roland Mas
David N. Welton (2001-09-13 14:30:54 +0200) : Books are big. Something that pulls in a lot of them is likely to be quite heavy. I think a package called 'books index' would make more sense. This would provide an index to all the book packages that are available in Debian, instructing the

Re: [RFC] Developer documentation packages.

2001-09-13 Thread Francesco P. Lovergine
On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 02:30:54PM +0200, David N. Welton wrote: Francesco P. Lovergine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Some e-books are available also under Open Publication License. What do you think of a pseudo package `ebooks-dev' which collects as many guides, faqs and e-books as possible

Re: [RFC] Developer documentation packages.

2001-09-13 Thread Francesco P. Lovergine
On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 03:05:09PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 02:30:54PM +0200, David N. Welton wrote: Francesco P. Lovergine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Some e-books are available also under Open Publication License. What do you think of a pseudo