Santiago Vila Doncel writes: > Yann Dirson wrote: > > I remember there once was some discussion about whether/where to > > install HTML docs created from .texi files. If I remember well, we > > mostly agreed that we should install them in a subdirectory of the > > package's doc dir, but nobody took a decision about how it should be > > named. And nothing was made policy. > > > > What's the current status of this ? > > We agreed that all packages should support a new `doc-base' package > which would generate .info, .html, .dvi or .ps on demand.
Yes and no: I also remember that there were objections for this on-demand generation, for machines with low resources (eg. 386). I don't remember seing a consensus about that, at least. What I remember is that someone proposed to come with a doc-base, so that we'll be able to judge from a sample implementation. > [ Of course, I would propose to postpone this for Debian 2.1 ] Yes, doc-base should probably wait for 2.1 now. But we could still make policy right now on the location of HTML'd texi files. Even if deity is not ready right now, I think it would be a good thing to have already a consistent doc layout when part-of-package-exclusions will be available. We already have a policy on where to put manpages and info files. I think having right now a policy for placing HTML and texi-HTML files should be a good thing. -- Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Stop making M$-Bill richer & richer, alt-email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | support Debian GNU/Linux: debian-email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | more powerful, more stable ! http://www.a2points.com/homepage/3475232 | ----------------------------------------- A computer engineer's looking for a job ! -----------------------------------------
