> On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 05:06:34PM -0400, Jason Chu wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 10:50:42PM +0300, Konstantinos P wrote:
>> > I totally agree with that, Qt docs should be included with qt
>> package or as a separate package.
>> >
>> > Douglas Soares de Andrade wrote:
>> >
>> > >Hi !
>> > >Im totally with you, it would be a great thing because the docs and
>> the examples are a key part in the process of learning something
>> new.
>> > >Im redirecting this message to the arch mailing list because i
>> think that someone there can help us in this.
>> > >Any ideas ?
>> > >Em Quinta 30 Junho 2005 18:40, Vinay Shastry escreveu:
>> > >
>> > >>On 6/21/05, Douglas Soares de Andrade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>>Im using the QT tools {assistant, designer} to make some apps,
>> but i found something... The assistant cant use any docs, i think
>> that is because they are deleted in PKGBUILD.
>> > >>>I think that they should be in the qt package, since QT
>> developers use it.
>> > >>>What do you think ?
>> > >>>
>> > >>i totally agree, there were some disussion abt this previously,
>> but then the thread died without any decision.
>> > >>i really would say we put examples, demos and docs in the qt
>> package or another qt-docs package. note that even examples and
>> demos are helpful
>>
>> I've thought about this with a few things, mostly API docs.
>> Personally, I think having docs for something like QT or python would
>> be good, even if they were in another package.
>>
>> On the one hand, we don't want to have unused docs cluttering the
>> system, but on the other, disconnected use would be nice.
>
> Removal of "/usr/share/info" also breaks Emacs online help. If a users
> selects "Help->Emacs FAQ" from the menu an elisp error is raised. Quite
> confusing for a new user. He may even file a bug report.
>
> Nobody wants unused docs like README.SCO. But maybe the decision of
> "what is useful/required" should be finally made by the package
> maintainer and not by a fixed entry in makepkg.
>
> Jürgen
>
Hey Jurgen, Jason, and the gang;
Way.....back when, Judd made a decision that he wanted those of us that
made packages: was exactly as you stated above Jurgen. Which was: IF the
package used or otherwise required documentation installed, (for instance)
to allow for on-line documentation via a "help" button OR keystroke(s),
then the package SHOULD install said documentation.
I know about this, because I had to ask Judd about this subject -> "way
back when".
Anyways, this seems like the most useful way to deal with things IMHO.
(YMMV)
Very best regards;
Bob Finch
_______________________________________________
arch mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
