On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 12:56 -0400, Dan Langille wrote: > On 17 Jun 2007 at 12:42, Scott Barninger wrote: > > > 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. > > What about two tarballs? PDF. HTML. > > Well, yes, I suppose I could build my own but I was sort of looking to avoid that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
