Dnia 2014-08-28, o godz. 00:37:48 Michał Górny <[email protected]> napisał(a):
> 3. ulm wants to reintroduce dohtml in an eclass for people who want to
> use it. I'd rather cover it with warnings signs and tell people not to
> touch it. IMHO a better replacement is the plain 'docinto html; dodoc
> -r ...', possibly with some extra filtering applied before or after
> install.
>
> What do you think?
One more thing came up on IRC: einstalldocs (and therefore the default
install function) installing README* that catches README.html as well.
I'd rather not add more dohtml-like magic and say it's fine.
Or more generically, it's fine to install HTML docs outside
${docdir}/html -- as long as docdir ends up being sane. That is:
1. single or small number of not-really-linked-together HTML files may
land in ${docdir} directly,
2. trees of HTML files (references, handbooks etc.) should land
in a subdirectory of docdir (via docinto; dodoc),
3. ${docdir}/html is recommended for commonly used HTML documentation
(the reference manual, for example). However, packages may use other
subdirectories if they see fit (e.g. when there's more than one tree of
HTML docs).
What do you think?
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
