On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 12:32 -0400, Dan Langille wrote: > On 17 Jun 2007 at 12:28, Scott Barninger wrote: > > > But the entire doc source tarball is still a source in the packages. So > > I'm thinking about changing that and making only the pdf manuals (user > > and developer) actual sources in the RPM package. > > I see no reason for the source files to be in the packages for the > documentation. My suggestion: split the docs into source and > "binary". > To be a bit more explicit, the bacula-docs tarball we publish has actually been build before releasing it. I have always included that tarball as a source and then installed a few pieces. I'm suggesting to just install the pdf manuals and skip the html manual if that doesn't cause anyone grief. I think pdf is universal enough at this point.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
