On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 04:44:44PM -0500, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote: > Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > [snip] > > Well. I do have ideas, have not expressed them in public. > > Here we go (out of my head): > > > > - all documentation that is Debian specific should be in the DDP CVS > > (that is reasonable, there is currently one exception: installation > > manual, but seems like a reasonable exception to me)
This is not possible since some may start making document in Docbook XML/SGML as in the case for newbiedoc. (currently just CVS entry only. actual activity is in sourceforge and package.) But if rephrased appropriately, I agree spirit of this statement. > > - documentation packages should *not* include the documentation, they > > should just do a "cvs co" from the DDP CVS (see harden-doc for example, > > or the java-common package) Javier, I have resentment. If documentation is very young and immature, this may be an option. But this beat the spirit of Debian as a binary distribution. > I don't agree here. In the .deb we probably only provide HTML, PDF and > palin text. Users need the source to generate other formats. Ardo, I agree. Question is PDF or PS? I vote for PDF. Encoding is another question. UTF-8? This is very tricky for Japanese and I do not even understand it :( > > - (if the layout for languages in the DDP CVS is homogeneus -sp?- this > > can easily be done) each documentation package creates one package for > > every language that the documentation is available in. > > > > - the packages publishes the documentation using standard doc-base/dhelp > > stuff > > Please, only support doc-base. dhelp should learn to use doc-base. Yes sir. I think I have to learn this. :) > > - documentation is always available under /usr/share/doc/package_name > > /usr/share/doc/package_name-XX (XX is the iso reference for a given > > language) contains a symlink to the documentation there. Translations > > (I assume English is *always* the reference language, per policy) > > are under /usr/share/doc/package_name/XX > > I don't see why English should be treated different than any other language > or locale. Hence, for _each_ locale there will be symlink to the appropriate > directory. Also, you need XX_YY to handle all currently supported locales, > e.g. pt_PT and pt_BR. In principle, I agree. Postinst script shoud create /usr/share/doc/package_name/ and install document there. While package_name-XX should be the name for each language which install administratative documents /usr/share/doc/package_name-XX and install real documentation content under /usr/share/doc/package_name/XX. Something like this will be nice. But pt_PT and pt_BR issues, I wonder: en_GB and en_US ? fr_FR and fr_CA ? Isn't that too much. Besides, I never saw pt_PT used for documentation yet. As I mentioned in other thread, creating and converting "date" under each locale are problematic for unexperienced like me. -- ~\^o^/~~~ ~\^.^/~~~ ~\^*^/~~~ ~\^_^/~~~ ~\^+^/~~~ ~\^:^/~~~ ~\^v^/~~~ +++++ Osamu Aoki @ Cupertino CA USA See "User's Guide": http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/users-guide/ See "Debian reference": http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/reference/ "Debian reference" Project at: http://qref.sf.net I welcome your constructive criticisms and corrections. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
