On 6/30/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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.
Personally, I've just commented out the line in makepkg that removes
the docs as I use a laptop that isn't always connected to the web (and
hence documentation is useful) and I've had FAR too many experiences
of installing a new piece of software from a package only to find that
the ONLY documentation is supposed to be in /usr/*/doc and there are
no copies available on the web. In these cases I've had to download
the source (assume I have a web connection at the time) and dig around
for the necessary parts.
Suffice to say I was pleased when I realised that makepkg is just a
script and hence easily editable...
Each to their own I guess.
Al
_______________________________________________
arch mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
