> On Friday 01 July 2005 10:45, A. S. Budden wrote: >> 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. > > I have just been hit by an idea: > > What if, instead of deleting, makepkg could create a separate package > with those documents, called, let's say "$pkgname-docs" (or > "$pkgname-doc"). > > * $pkgname-docs' PKGBUILD could be automatically generated (this might > be a bit difficult), so that it could be shared (if the package > wouldn't actually be put online). Actually, copying all the fields from > the original PKGBUILD might not be very difficult. A particular > de-achiving method would hurt the automated process. > > * $pkgname-docs would depend on $pkgname (well, this might not fit all > the cases) > > * could be a default option for makepkg - makepkg could create a package > on his own, without generating a $pkgname-docs PKGBUILD, just by > copying (instead of removing) the docs to $startdir/docs (just like in > $startdir/pkg) and pack that dir with the package tags in the original > PKGBUILD (the package maintainer could decide then wether it will > publish $pkgname-docs or not, since it won't break anything) > > * if it's not a default option in makepkg, it could be a makepkg switch > (I don't like this since it would require building AGAIN the package > just to get a copy of the docs out of the original install). > > * all the *-docs packages could be put in a separate repo, let's say > [docs] > > (between the above ideas you don't have to put AND, OR is more > appropriate) > > > Mircea > /IceRAM > > P.S. I am currently in search of the Qt & Java documentation which I > don't know if they can be found in the source packages (downloading the > src packages would take a while). The search continues... > > -- > http://mircea.bardac.net
Hey Mircea and the gang; You have done a good job summarizing the various options. $pkgname-docs has been done some in the past "in archlinux". Off hand I recall this being done, at my request, by the packager of scribus. This is useful solution for those packages that do not require docs by the program during binary execution, (like file-menu based help files) but nonetheless having docs loaded on the machine would be nice. Especially those docs that are not easily found on the web, or where web-based documentation is too cumbersome. Very best regards; Bob Finch _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
