> 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
>
Been there, done that, and have the tee-shirt too.
Very best regards;
Bob Finch
_______________________________________________
arch mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
