On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:08:49AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 27 January 2017 at 06:51, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: > > "What can we cut" is the wrong question. The right one is "what are our > > requirements". Here's my try: > > > > HTML: required > > nroff with an macros: required > > PDF: wanted (try printing a website) > > plain text: nice to have (for me personally, more than that) > > info: nice to have > > > > If a solution we like can't provide something that's nice to have, we > > can decide to take it anyway. > > > > If a solution we like can provide something that's nice to have, we > > should let it provide, unless it turns out to be a drag. > > Well, every extra documentation format: > * increases the build time > * increases the chances of makefile bugs > * may require extra tooling to produce > * either requires us to check it for problems or increases > the chance of confusing users because that output format > has a formatting problem that doesn't happen in the doc > formats most people use > * may require significant extra work to produce something > that's actually useful: a manpage and an info doc aren't > just the same content in a different file format, they > should have definitely different contents and structure > to fit what people expect a manpage or an info doc to be > > So my list is: > * HTML: required > * PDF: nice-to-have
We also need to produce man pages for the command-line tools. Stefan
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
