Hi folks!
Here is another proposal for our new Documentation Policy. This
time, I have added a list of assumptions, on which this proposal is
based on.
Note, that this is not the actual text that will be included in the
Policy Manual, but a list of statements such a text will be based
On Sun, Jun 29 1997 12:11 +0200 Christian Schwarz writes:
Packages that contain programs with GNU info manuals, should provide
the manuals in HTML _and_ in GNU info format. The HTML files should be
Shouldn't this read texinfo? --
stored in the directory
Am 25.06.97 schrieb joey # kite.ml.org ...
Moin Joey!
JH I haven't been following this thread closely (catching up on mail backlog
JH after vacation), but the reason I've heard why it's not acceptable to ship
JH only info files and convert to html on the fly is because the converter in
JH dwww
Bruce Perens wrote:
Rather than make any of lynx, dwww, and boa part of the base system,
I'd mark them important. The base system has the sole purpose of
Yes.
editor the user has selected). In the case of a floppy install, the user
would probably prefer that we not add another three
Marco Budde wrote:
CS Option 3: We ship .texi files and produce HTML and/or info files on
CS demand (in the postinst script).
Oh no. That's a very bad idea. All converters like latex2html, sgml-tools,
texi2html produce not very perfect HTML code. You've to edit the HTML
On 25 Jun 1997, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Philip == Philip Hands [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Philip I was thinking about the possibility of offereing _all_ Debian
Philip documentation on a web site --- which lpr(1) man page would
Philip you want to show? lpr's or lprng's?
Philip Perhaps man
Am 23.06.97 schrieb schwarz # monet.m.isar.de ...
Moin Christian!
CS Option 3: We ship .texi files and produce HTML and/or info files on
CS demand (in the postinst script).
Oh no. That's a very bad idea. All converters like latex2html, sgml-tools,
texi2html produce not very
On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Joey Hess wrote:
I haven't been following this thread closely (catching up on mail backlog
after vacation), but the reason I've heard why it's not acceptable to ship
only info files and convert to html on the fly is because the converter in
dwww that does this produces
Am 26.06.97 schrieb alegre # saturn.superlink.net ...
Moin Fernando!
a If we want to have HTML as the default we would have to put some effort
a into fixing bugs in the converters. A converter fixed means many documents
a fixed, while a document fixed is just one document fixed. We would have to
For Deity, I suppose we could make pattern-matching work in the policy file.
I think that would be preferable to simple directory exclusion.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Bruce Perens wrote:
From: Philip Hands [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think we should aim to get all documentation into separate packages.
Please don't do this. Deity will have the capability to exclude installation
to certain directories (like
Well, you're going to need a script to implement that policy. Probably
the best way to handle this is to provide a way to tell the package system
that you have deliberately removed a file, and that this file should not
be replaced. I wouldn't expect this in version 1.0 .
What exactly is the
From: Santiago Vila Doncel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, I think that it would be much cleaner for deity to have the ability
of grouping a set of packages to be installed at once instead of
doing partial installs of larger packages.
Yes, we did discuss that.
Moreover, we would not lost our good
From: Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What exactly is the rationale behind the HTML mandate?
We wanted to have a single interface to present all Debian documentation.
We looked at the various means of displaying documentation, and it was
clear that we could convert almost any documentation to
On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Philip Hands wrote:
Even if we are, I'm sure it would be easier if every package `foo' had
one or more associated `foo-doc' packages.
From: Christian Schwarz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We are currently planning such a thing for our own manuals. The
discussion was on debian-doc a
Santiago Vila Doncel:
On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, Christian Schwarz wrote:
Option 3: We ship .texi files and produce HTML and/or info files on
demand (in the postinst script).
Rather, I'd like us to ship .texi or .info files and produce html on demand
via dwww or some equivialnt. Then
That makes sense (using deity support for the exclusion, I mean.)
After all, as a *package maintainer*, I want it to be *difficult* for
a user to accidentally not install documentation; I want them to have
to deliberately go out of their way if they want to fail to install
it. (After all, I want
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
Someone brought up the point of recursive regular-expression
searching. Of course this should be done with a CGI script rather than
as a browser facility, so that it would be browser-independent. One
could build a tiny search engine with zgrep and the
James R. Van Zandt:
Christian Schwarz [EMAIL PROTECTED] proposes:
The documentation will be distributed via several packages:
foo-doc-html for HTML docs
foo-doc-info for GNU info docs (where available)
foo-doc-xxx for other formats
From: Mark Eichin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
After all, as a *package maintainer*, I want it to be *difficult* for
a user to accidentally not install documentation; I want them to have
to deliberately go out of their way if they want to fail to install it.
That's how I feel.
Thanks
From: Rob Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That was me. I guess the cgi approach would make stuff like recursive
incremental searches (a la C-s in the info tool) out of the question,
but I kind of figured that was a losing battle.
I-search would take a Java-equpped browser as far as I can tell. It's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
I-search would take a Java-equpped browser as far as I can tell. It's
not do-able all in free software today. That will not be the case forever.
Right. Also might be do-able as a hack in something like dwww
(assuming I understand what it's doing) or w3
Philippe == Philippe Troin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Philippe On Mon, 23 Jun 1997 20:13:13 +0200 Christian Schwarz
Philippe ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Option 3: We ship .texi files and produce HTML and/or info files on
demand (in the postinst script).
Philippe I like this idea a lot.
Bruce Perens wrote:
From: Scott K. Ellis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have no problem when HTML is the provided upstream documentation source,
and don't want to cripple my ability to read that. However, when the
upstream source is something else, such as info/texinfo, I don't want HTML
as well.
Bruce Perens writes:
From: Philip Hands [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think we should aim to get all documentation into separate packages.
Please don't do this. Deity will have the capability to exclude installation
to certain directories (like /usr/doc) based on a system policy file.
Packages
Philip Hands writes:
There is of course a problem with trying to install all the documentation on
a
machine, since some conflicting packages provide man pages with overlapping
names.
I think that the 'alternative' mechanism could be used there.
--
Yann Dirson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Christian Schwarz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This quotation is not complete and thus incorrect!
OK - I just wanted to make sure the policy direction wasn't going toward
un-bundling all documentation. Sorry!
Bruce
--
Bruce Perens K6BP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510-215-3502
Finger [EMAIL
From: Yann Dirson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* it will cost bandwidth when you just want to install either
binary-only or doc-only, using FTP
* further more, it will cost money to users as pay for local calls,
here in France
* it will cost disk-space on mirror sites, as debian will probably
MS == Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MS: Da Platten immer billiger werden ist Diskspace wirklich kein
MS: Argument mehr, solange es um Daten 100MB geht.
Sorry, I've no money to take the 500 MB disk in my notebook, throw it
away and buy new one for many $s. And I think there
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, Christian Schwarz wrote:
Option 3: We ship .texi files and produce HTML and/or info files on
demand (in the postinst script).
I think this is not a good idea. Where are these html/info files supposed
to be generated? Will
Christian Schwarz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the documentation files in all available formats do not require
more than 100k of disk space _together_, they may be included in the
main package. Otherwise, the will have to be distributed in
seperate packages, one for each
On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Philip Hands wrote:
I think we should aim to get all documentation into separate packages.
Would it not be possible to make the package building tools (deb-make, debstd
etc.) assume a simplest case of ``single binary, and single docs package''
rather than the current
From: Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What if one wants to exclude only HTML documentation?
Well, for now
find /usr/doc -name '*.html' -o -name '*.html.gz' -exec rm -f \{\} \;
Should work OK. I typed that from memory, so make sure it's right before
you run it.
For Deity, I suppose we could
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Bruce Perens wrote:
From: Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What if one wants to exclude only HTML documentation?
Well, for now
find /usr/doc -name '*.html' -o -name '*.html.gz' -exec rm -f \{\} \;
Should work OK. I typed that from
James R. Van Zandt writes:
There is an alternative I think we should consider. Let each binary
package include both .info and .html files. Give dpkg two additional
switches --no-html and --no-info which would be used with -i. These
would cause dpkg to immediately remove
Mark Eichin writes:
/usr/info/emacs-info. I suggest to split this off into a new package
called emacs-doc-info. In addition, we should create an emacs-doc-html
Interesting. Not really an option, though; as far as emacs is
concerned, that's part of how it documents itself.
[...]
On Jun 24, Santiago Vila Doncel wrote
But I still dislike automatic building. If you just want not having to
fetch the source package, what about a foo-doc-texi binary package (on a
do whatever you want with it basis), which just ships the .texi source?
Better still (IMO, of course :) would
/usr/info/emacs-info. I suggest to split this off into a new package
called emacs-doc-info. In addition, we should create an emacs-doc-html
Interesting. Not really an option, though; as far as emacs is
concerned, that's part of how it documents itself. If you come up
with a way that works as
I like this proposal too.
Yet another reason, why separate docs could be good:
Sometimes I want only to check documentation, read more about
something (e.g. some toolkit and/or programming language) and I don't
want to install 20 MB package when I need only 1 MB documentation
which I want to read
Hi folks!
To summarize this discussion so far: I think everyone here agrees that we
should provide HTML and INFO.
So we currently have three options, both having their advantages and
disadvantages:
(Arguments with `(-)' will become obsolete when deity is available, see
below.)
Option
Option 3: We ship .texi files and produce HTML and/or info files on
demand (in the postinst script).
Advantages:
- No work for the maintainers.
- Great flexibility (the sysadmin could even produce PostScript
files when needed!).
This is extremely good
Christian Schwarz [EMAIL PROTECTED] proposes:
The documentation will be distributed via several packages:
foo-doc-html for HTML docs
foo-doc-info for GNU info docs (where available)
foo-doc-xxx for other formats (only where appropriate)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Schulze) writes:
I don't like the idea of splitting packages that much. It increses
the confusion for users. For new users it is incredible difficult
to install Debian because of 1000 packages.
I think keeping the user from having to deal with this complexity
From: Christian Schwarz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's pretty clear to me that we'll have to support info in the future,
since we would have to drop the GNU from Debian GNU/Linux otherwise.
Actually, I don't think FSF is sticky about this issue. Richard acknowledges
the existence of free browsers for
To make documentation for packages optional by splitting it into
separate packages would not be a good idea at this point. Please wait
for Deity to implement more fine-grained control over installation, or
let the user manually remove /usr/doc or /usr/info .
Thanks
Bruce
--
Am 21.06.97 schrieb schwarz # monet.m.isar.de ...
Moin Christian!
CS However, HTML is getting more and more popular these days and I think it
CS would be very unwise not to choose HTML as preferred document format.
Right. A lot of companies will use HTML for their programms.
CS To summarize
Am 21.06.97 schrieb schwarz # monet.m.isar.de ...
Moin Christian!
CS 2. The new deity (dselect successor) will simplify the handling of
CS 1000 packages very much. I had another idea: Perhaps we could deity
CS adopt to have an overall switch about which documentation the
CS user
Hi folks!
The html vs. info discussion reminds me of vi vs. emacs discussions
:-)
It's pretty clear to me that we'll have to support info in the future,
since we would have to drop the GNU from Debian GNU/Linux otherwise.
However, HTML is getting more and more popular these days and I think it
That is a very reasonable proposal. I like it!
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rosebud.sps.queensu.ca/~edd
PGP key fingerprint = B2 49 75 BF 44 2C B7 AA 50 CB 19 7D 80 F7 CB DC
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Sat, 21 Jun 1997, Christian Schwarz wrote:
The documentation will be distributed via several packages:
foo-doc-html for HTML docs
foo-doc-info for GNU info docs (where available)
foo-doc-xxx for
Christian Schwarz writes:
Hi folks!
re
So I suggest the following policy. Note, that this is just a summary, not
the actual text.
The unification of Debian documentation is being carried out via
HTML. However, we'll still provide GNU info documentation, where
available.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Sat, 21 Jun 1997, Santiago Vila Doncel wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 1997, Christian Schwarz wrote:
The documentation will be distributed via several packages:
foo-doc-html for HTML docs
foo-doc-info for GNU info docs
On Sat, 21 Jun 1997, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
-BEGIN PGP DECRYPTED MESSAGE-
On Sat, 21 Jun 1997, Santiago Vila Doncel wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 1997, Christian Schwarz wrote:
The documentation will be distributed via several packages:
foo-doc-html for
On Sat, 21 Jun 1997, Martin Schulze wrote:
[snip]
I don't like the idea of splitting packages that much. It increses
the confusion for users. For new users it is incredible difficult
to install Debian because of 1000 packages.
I can understand your argument very good. However:
1. I
54 matches
Mail list logo
