On Sep 5, 10:01 am, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sep 5, 2008, at 9:47 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi Sage-Devel,
>
> > What do you think of (optionally) adding a doc/ subdirectory to
> > each spkg?
> > When the spkg, say foo-1.2.3.spkg is installed, the directory
>
> > SAGE_ROOT/doc/packages/foo
>
> > would be a copy of that doc/ subdirectory.
>
> > That's it.
>
> > The idea is that this would be very helpful for people on airplanes,
> > etc., without
> > internet access, who really want to browse say the GMP docs or the
> > Python
> > docs, but can't because they don't have internet access or the
> > tools to build the docs from source. Typically doc/ would
> > contain html only
> > or maybe html and pdf versions of *built* docs, hence adding no
> > dependency
> > for building Sage.
>
> > This would also provide an iterative way of getting rid of the
> > out of date extra_docs spkg from early 2007, which nobody
> > wants to update.
>
> > Thoughts?
It will increase the size of spkgs which is not a good thing. How many
spkgs are actually having documentation removed?
> > To make this happen: (1) people have to think it is a good idea,
> > and (2) a few
> > lines of code need to be added to local/bin/sage-spkg
Well, we might as well install the documentation per default. At this
point it will probably not make much of a difference at install time.
> > -- William
>
> +1
We might introduce some build dependency that we did not have before,
so that is a definite concern of mine.
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
