>On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 07:14:50PM +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote: >> Initial proposition had two points: >> 1) always split javadoc-generated documentation in another package >> 2) standardize javadoc location to cross-link generated documentation >> There have been opposition againt 1), so lets' drop it. But >opposition >> against 2) seems to only concerns creation of a specific >/usr/share/javadoc >> directory. >> >> However, i am not convinced we can achieve 2) without 1): >> - if bar's javadoc is sometimes part of bar-doc package, >sometimes part of >> bar-anythingelse package, then packager would have to check >for it instead of >> just using a bar-javadoc build requirement > >I'm not positive what you mean, but if you're talking about making >the packaging more automatic, I'm not sure it is really a big >concern. All you need is a rule that says, the javadoc-generated >files go in package X. If you're hoping for perfect automation, >well, I'm not sure that's a good goal. > >> - the same apply for precise file location in >/usr/share/doc: some will be in >> /usr/share/doc/bar-doc/(api,apidoc,javadoc), some in >> /usr/share/doc/bar-anythingelse/(api,apidoc,javadoc) > >Yes, it would probably be ideal for it to be under the "base" >package name. Is this an issue with rpm?
Shouldn't we use only /usr/share/doc/ant-1.4.1/javadoc /usr/share/doc/ant-1.4.1/manual what's the difference between api, apidoc and javadoc ? >> - directories names in /usr/share/doc use version number (on >rpm systems, i >> don't know for Debian), so it is yet another problem >I had forgotten that feature of rpm. Maybe that's a reason to use >/usr/share/javadoc , at least on rpm systems. Good :)