Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's all true, but it fails to convince me that is better not to state
> this in the policy than to state it (only Steve's point about "wrong API
> docs", but I'm convinced it will be quantitatively small). My approach
> to this is first to decide
On 29-Apr-07, 03:10 (CDT), Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [Neil Williams]
> > I chose Debian as a development platform for my own reasons and my
> > decision was "not deemed to be wise" in the eyes of some of my
> > upstream colleagues. As the newbie to that particular team, I was
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 09:23:03AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> docs", but I'm convinced it will be quantitatively small). My approach
> to this is first to decide whether API docs in the policy is something
> we want in debian or not. Then, if it is the case, to state it in the
> policy. Th
[Neil Williams]
> I chose Debian as a development platform for my own reasons and my
> decision was "not deemed to be wise" in the eyes of some of my
> upstream colleagues. As the newbie to that particular team, I was
> under significant pressure to "upgrade to Fedora or SuSE".
Are you saying Fed
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 02:37:46PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> write documentation or don't understand the API. Wrong API docs are surely
> worse than not having no docs, aren't they?
> If I thought putting it in policy would significantly improve the
> availability of API docs in Debian, I wo
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Fair enough, but note that having man pages is actually addressed by the
> policy. Why do you think API doc shouldn't? After all man pages are docs
> for users and API doc are too, with the only difference that in the
> latter case the "users" are p
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 04:23:38PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:12:46AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > If we are talking about hand-written documentation you're of course
> > > right. However if you're talking about documentation which can be
> > > generated aut
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:12:46AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > If we are talking about hand-written documentation you're of course
> > right. However if you're talking about documentation which can be
> > generated automatically from sources (and not that it was the "ideal"
> > point of Neil)
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 09:13:18AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 04:27:34PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > On 23-Apr-07, 15:51 (CDT), Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > I think that all libraries - without exception - must come with some
> > > > >
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 19:32:46 -0400
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Neil Williams wrote:
> > I chose Debian as a development platform for my own reasons and my
> > decision was "not deemed to be wise" in the eyes of some of my
> > upstream colleagues. As the newbie to that particular team, I
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 04:27:34PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > On 23-Apr-07, 15:51 (CDT), Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I think that all libraries - without exception - must come with some
> > > > API documentation and the docs should be as complete and as accurate
> > > >
Neil Williams wrote:
> There is a distinct lack of man (3) and "coordinated" documentation for
> libraries in Debian. True, some poorly documented packages include test
> programs or examples somewhere under /usr/share/doc/ but it isn't
> simple to track these down.
Is it unreasonable to expect
Neil Williams wrote:
> I chose Debian as a development platform for my own reasons and my
> decision was "not deemed to be wise" in the eyes of some of my upstream
> colleagues. As the newbie to that particular team, I was under
> significant pressure to "upgrade to Fedora or SuSE". Debian needs to
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 12:00:59AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:15:02 -0500
> Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 23-Apr-07, 15:51 (CDT), Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I think that all libraries - without exception - must come with some
> > >
Neil Williams wrote:
> Would these changes need a GR?
Why would a policy change need a GR? How could a GR possibly be the best
way to choose a sound technical policy?
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:15:02 -0500
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 23-Apr-07, 15:51 (CDT), Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think that all libraries - without exception - must come with some
> > API documentation and the docs should be as complete and as accurate
> >
On 23-Apr-07, 15:51 (CDT), Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that all libraries - without exception - must come with some
> API documentation and the docs should be as complete and as accurate
> as possible - ideally generated from the source itself.
That's not a Debian issue. Al
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:39:26 +0100
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
After reading the responses so far, the -doc element of my original
idea needs modification.
> I'd like to see all library source packages having a minimum of 4
> binary packages required by Policy: the SONAME, the -dev,
18 matches
Mail list logo
