On Tue, 15 May 2001, Eric Faurot wrote:
> Stefan Seefeld writes:
> > Christoph Egger wrote:
> >
> > >On Mon, 14 May 2001, Eric Faurot wrote:
> > >
> > >>Hi all,
> > >>
> > >>I'll be changing the official site really soon.
> > >>I uploaded it at http://www.ggi-project.org/sitetest/html/
> > >>
> > >>It's time for module maintainers to check if the descriptions
> > >>are up-to-date.
> > >>
> >
> > and while we are at it:
> >
> > I find the documentation rather confusing, given that part of the links
> > are dangling, some
> > point to hopelessly outdated info, and some seem even to be relevant :).
> > I'd like the documentation
> > to reflect the new structure of the sources, i.e. a section for core
> > libs, a section for extensions, etc.
>
> I agree. I suggest that we create yet another module for the
> documentation. Anyway, if we want to add the docs for extensions,
> it should not be kept only in the libggi tree. The other solution
> is to split the documentation across all modules.
The idea sounds good, but each lib in CVS has its own
doc-directory. But I have three suggestions to solve this:
1. Each lib/extension should have its own full documentation,
which are automatically synchroniced with the docs at
ibiblio. The disadvantage is, that all the docs explaining the
interaction between the libs/extensions must be rewritten in the
worst case.
2. Each lib/extension holds merely the API-doc (man-pages and
docbook-style). This allows us to create html-files at ibiblio
automatically, so that we can read the newest API-docs at
www.ggi-project.org, too. Each non-API documentation goes in an
separate docs CVS-module (docbook-style only) and will be updated
at ibiblio automatically as well.
3. We hold all our documentation in a separate CVS-module docs
(docbook-style only) and update ibiblio from there.
Any comments?
CU,
Christoph Egger
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S.: Personally I'd prefer suggestion #2.
