Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit : > ... but frankly, it would be quite annoying to have two *different* > binary packages to install to get the totality of the lablgtk2 > documentation we have to offer. [...]
We can have liblablgtk2-ocaml-doc recommends (or even depends on, even I would not be fond of this) lablgtk2-tutorials. > If, as I guess, tutorials are small, it is probably better to ship them > directly from the lablgtk2 source tarball (yes, hence modifying it via > "debian/rules get-orig-source" or something souch) and have both API ref > and other doc end up in the liblablgtk2-ocaml-doc package. They are ~ 1.7 MB installed. I prefer to avoid tempering with upstream tarball if possible. Moreover, I expect the tutorials to evolve much more slowly than lablgtk2 itself (the "upstream" tarball of lablgtk2-doc has never changed since its first upload in 2004. > At that point, the old lablgtk2-doc source package can go. If it must > stay, I see little point in renaming its _source_ package name. I made this proposal for uniformity, and to avoid confusion. Of course, we could just keep the same source package name, but we have to find a new binary package name. Cheers, -- Stéphane -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
