On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Francois Gouget wrote:
> Ove Kaaven wrote:
> [...]
> > Package: libwine-dev
> > Depends: libwine
> > Contains:
> > usr/include/wine
> >
> > Package: wine-utils
> > Contains:
> > usr/bin: winedbg, winebuild, wmc, wrc, fnt2bdf
> > usr/share/man: man pages for wmc and wrc
>
> Wouldn't it be better if winebuild, wmc, wrc and their manpages (and
> later winemaker) were in libwine-dev? After all they are all pretty much
> required if you plan to develop WineLib applications. winedbg and
> fnt2bdf OTOH have a legitimate use with just wine.
Well, that was the way it was originally packaged by Andrew Lenharth. I
just added a "Recommends: wine-utils" to libwine-dev, but I guess I could
also easily move the files if it seems reasonable to have them in
libwine-dev directly...
> > Package: wine-doc
> > Contains:
> > usr/share/doc/wine-doc: SGML and HTML documentation, and the other
> > small files (status/, psdrv.reg, and such)
>
> I'm not sure I would put the SGML version of the documentation,
> unless it's mandated by the Debian packaging guidelines.
Well, doc-base does support registering docs in multiple formats, one of
which is "debiandoc-sgml". The format the guidelines recommend is HTML,
though, and that IS included in the above, right? The SGML is just in case
the user wants to convert something him/herself... well, then again,
perhaps I should have generated PS too so the user wouldn't have to
convert just to print it? (But generating PS and PDF generates loads of
bad-looking warnings here, which is why I haven't... perhaps I need to
install additional fonts or something?)
> See, I'm in favor of putting the SGML in the Wine CVS because
> developpers should work on the source, and for the doc that is SGML. But
> wine-doc is for users, not developpers, so we should give them
> 'binaries'. Here that would be HTML pages.
Yes, shouldn't that be obvious? Does it HURT to have SGML along with the
HTML documentation in wine-doc?
