On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Pauli Virtanen <[email protected]> wrote: > Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:05:57 +0100, Ondrej Certik wrote: > >> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Pauli Virtanen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:15:43 +0900, David Cournapeau wrote: >>>> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 7:43 PM, Ondrej Certik <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Just to make it clear -- I think the docs should not be generated in >>>>> the tarball -- only the sources should be there. >>>> >>>> I agree this makes more sense for you, as a packager, but I am not >>>> sure it makes much sense to put the doc sources in the tarball for >>>> users (Building numpy should only require python + a C compiler; >>>> building the doc is more difficult -you need at least sphinx and all >>>> its dependencies). >>>> >>>> For audiolab, I put the generated doc, thinking if people want to mess >>>> with the doc, they are knowledgeable enough to deal with svn - but I >>>> did not think about the packagers :) I am not sure what's the best >>>> solution: maybe put both in the (released) source tarball ? >>> >>> I'd say that we put the source for the documentation to the >>> documentation tarball, and distribute the built HTML+whatever >>> documentation in a separate package. >> >> Why not to just include the *sources* together with numpy, and possibly >> include html+whatever in a separate documentation package? > > That's what I tried to say, but mistyped "source" as "documentation".
Ok, so we all seem to agree that having (at least) the source of docs together with the main numpy tarball is a good thing. I'll try to have a look at this. Ondrej _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
