364F 80E6
-Original Message-
From: GOMEZ Henri
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 10:45 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
Debian doesn't use RPM as part of the package management
infrastructure, and any
80E6
-Original Message-
From: GOMEZ Henri
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 10:45 AM
To: debian-java@lists.debian.org
Subject: RE: [summary] Re: policy proposition for javadoc installation
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
Debian doesn't use RPM as part of the package management
infrastructure
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
Debian doesn't use RPM as part of the package management
infrastructure, and any limitations of RPM is therefore irrelevant to
how Debian should handle javadoc, and (in general) Debian policy.
So, again: why should Debian policy care about RPM systems?
Only in the
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
Debian doesn't use RPM as part of the package management
infrastructure, and any limitations of RPM is therefore irrelevant to
how Debian should handle javadoc, and (in general) Debian policy.
So, again: why should Debian policy care about RPM systems?
Only in the
* GOMEZ Henri
| Why should Debian policy care about rpm systems?
|
| /usr/share/javadoc , at least on rpm systems
No need to shout, I am able to read. Also, you didn't answer the
question.
| Who speak about debian ?
This is a list which is called debian-java@lists.debian.org, which
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
Debian doesn't use RPM as part of the package management
infrastructure, and any limitations of RPM is therefore irrelevant to
how Debian should handle javadoc, and (in general) Debian policy.
So, again: why should Debian policy care about RPM systems?
Only in the context
* (Andrew Pimlott)
| - 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.
Why should Debian
* (Andrew Pimlott)
| - 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.
Why should Debian
| - 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.
Why should Debian policy care about rpm
Henri == GOMEZ Henri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Henri Who speak about debian ?
Henri,
You're posting to a Debian mailing list in case you hadn't noticed.
I'm a little distributed by a number of posters tendency to forget
this.
--
Stephen
And what do we burn apart from witches?... More
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
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.
Max == Max Kellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Max Why can't package X-doc put the documentation under
Max /usr/share/doc/X instead of /usr/share/doc/X-doc?
There was a proposal in debian-devel from Anthony Towns which
completely addresses your issues.
See [EMAIL PROTECTED] on
Ainsi parlait Robert Bihlmeyer :
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Pimlott) writes:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 12:21:57PM +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
According to discussion, it seems we agreed on following points:
I didn't realize there was consensus, [...]
Me neither. For the record, I'm
On 2001/11/26 18:55
I agree that if there is a package with so much documentation that
installing it all might take up too much space. In that case,
separate -doc and -javadoc packages would be ok. But Debian tends
to discourage frivilous package splitting, so this should only be
done as
Max == Max Kellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Max Why can't package X-doc put the documentation under
Max /usr/share/doc/X instead of /usr/share/doc/X-doc?
There was a proposal in debian-devel from Anthony Towns which
completely addresses your issues.
See [EMAIL PROTECTED] on
Ainsi parlait Robert Bihlmeyer :
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Pimlott) writes:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 12:21:57PM +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
According to discussion, it seems we agreed on following points:
I didn't realize there was consensus, [...]
Me neither. For the record, I'm
On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 06:39:38PM +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
Ainsi parlait Andrew Pimlott :
What exactly do you mean by standard documentation? I assume you
mean non-developer documentation. In this case, you are
presenting a false division, because developer documentation is
not
Ainsi parlait Andrew Pimlott :
On Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 12:21:57PM +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
According to discussion, it seems we agreed on following points:
I didn't realize there was consensus, though that may be because
I've been skimming lots of back mail. I don't think this
Ainsi parlait GOMEZ Henri :
- should we contact FHS about this new directory (/usr/share/javadoc) ?
Yes
Even if we switch to using standard /usr/share/doc instead, maybe we could
summarise relevant part of our policies to FHS anyway (usr/share/java, for
instance). Unless some Debian folks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Pimlott) writes:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 12:21:57PM +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
According to discussion, it seems we agreed on following points:
I didn't realize there was consensus, [...]
Me neither. For the record, I'm also dissenting with Guillaume's
Ainsi parlait Andrew Pimlott :
On Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 12:21:57PM +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
According to discussion, it seems we agreed on following points:
I didn't realize there was consensus, though that may be because
I've been skimming lots of back mail. I don't think this
Ainsi parlait GOMEZ Henri :
- should we contact FHS about this new directory (/usr/share/javadoc) ?
Yes
Even if we switch to using standard /usr/share/doc instead, maybe we could
summarise relevant part of our policies to FHS anyway (usr/share/java, for
instance). Unless some Debian folks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Pimlott) writes:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 12:21:57PM +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
According to discussion, it seems we agreed on following points:
I didn't realize there was consensus, [...]
Me neither. For the record, I'm also dissenting with Guillaume's
On Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 10:33:50PM -0800, Bill Wohler wrote:
Guillaume Rousse [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- which name to use for javadoc package ?
debian use -doc for their standard documentation package, so -javadoc would
be consistent
jpackage use -manual, so -javadoc would be less
On Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 12:21:57PM +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
According to discussion, it seems we agreed on following points:
I didn't realize there was consensus, though that may be because
I've been skimming lots of back mail. I don't think this proposal
has much merit.
- have
On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 10:48:43AM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
But if we want to distinguish between doc and javadoc on the filesystem
level I think it is good to separate it on the package level too.
Why? For example, glibc-doc contains both man and info files. The
only common reason for
On Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 10:33:50PM -0800, Bill Wohler wrote:
Guillaume Rousse [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- which name to use for javadoc package ?
debian use -doc for their standard documentation package, so -javadoc would
be consistent
jpackage use -manual, so -javadoc would be less
On Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 12:21:57PM +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
According to discussion, it seems we agreed on following points:
I didn't realize there was consensus, though that may be because
I've been skimming lots of back mail. I don't think this proposal
has much merit.
- have standard
On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 10:48:43AM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
But if we want to distinguish between doc and javadoc on the filesystem
level I think it is good to separate it on the package level too.
Why? For example, glibc-doc contains both man and info files. The
only common reason for
At 08 Nov 2001 15:34:24 -0800,
Bill Wohler wrote:
The precedent is for /usr/share/javadoc.
javadoc isn't only English. If we consider international documents,
it's better that directory have subdirectories for each language.
For example,
/usr/share/javadoc/language/package
/*
According to discussion, it seems we agreed on following points:
- have standard documentation and javadoc documentation in differents packages
- install javadoc documentation in /usr/share/javadoc/package
Points which are still to decide:
- which name to use for javadoc package ?
debian use
- should we contact FHS about this new directory (/usr/share/javadoc) ?
Yes
- is cross-linking of javadoc an interesting/achievable feature ?
When building foo package, depending of bar package, add -linkoffline
/usr/share/javadoc/bar option to javadoc would provide
cross-linked api
According to discussion, it seems we agreed on following points:
- have standard documentation and javadoc documentation in differents packages
- install javadoc documentation in /usr/share/javadoc/package
Points which are still to decide:
- which name to use for javadoc package ?
debian use -doc
- should we contact FHS about this new directory (/usr/share/javadoc) ?
Yes
- is cross-linking of javadoc an interesting/achievable feature ?
When building foo package, depending of bar package, add -linkoffline
/usr/share/javadoc/bar option to javadoc would provide
cross-linked api
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bill Wohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ola Lundqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why not use /usr/share/doc/javadoc instead?
I think it a better place, easier to find and more consistent.
Ola,
The precedent is for /usr/share/javadoc.
Erm, this should have gone to the list..
--
Mike Gratton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Leader in leachate production and transmission since 1976.
http://web.vee.net/
---BeginMessage---
Guillaume Rousse wrote:
We propose instead to install it under a distinct subdirectory under a new
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ola Lundqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Nov 03, 2001 at 03:04:36PM +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
We would like your opinion about this proposition:
Package documentation usualy goes in a distinct subdirectory under
On Sat, Nov 03, 2001 at 03:04:36PM +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
We would like your opinion about this proposition:
Package documentation usualy goes in a distinct subdirectory under
/usr/share/doc, as established by FHS. Java software also comes with
javadoc-generated api documentation,
Ola Lundqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why not use /usr/share/doc/javadoc instead?
I think it a better place, easier to find and more consistent.
Ola,
The precedent is for /usr/share/javadoc.
Consider /usr/share/man and /usr/share/info. Are there others?
The directories under
Erm, this should have gone to the list..
--
Mike Gratton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Leader in leachate production and transmission since 1976.
http://web.vee.net/
---BeginMessage---
Guillaume Rousse wrote:
We propose instead to install it under a distinct subdirectory under a new
/usr/share/apidoc
So should this..
--
Mike Gratton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Leader in leachate production and transmission since 1976.
http://web.vee.net/
---BeginMessage---
Kevin A. Burton wrote:
Um, why would I want to distinguish api documentation from other
documentation?
Because most people won't care about API
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ola Lundqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Nov 03, 2001 at 03:04:36PM +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
We would like your opinion about this proposition:
Package documentation usualy goes in a distinct subdirectory under
/usr/share/doc,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin A. Burton) writes:
Robert Bihlmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Um, why would I want to distinguish api documentation from other
documentation? For libraries the former is the most important information
there is ...
Because most people won't care about API
At first I was going to defend /usr/share/doc/package/api, but
having something like /usr/share/javadoc/package would be a nice
corollary to /usr/share/man.
- name 'apidoc' is not specificaly related to java, could also be used by
other languages
And yes, I'd use javadoc too.
Guillaume Rousse [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- distinction with standard documentation
Um, why would I want to distinguish api documentation from other
documentation? For libraries the former is the most important
information there is ...
--
Robbe
signature.ng
Description: PGP signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Bihlmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Guillaume Rousse [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- distinction with standard documentation
Um, why would I want to distinguish api documentation from other
documentation? For libraries the former is the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bill Wohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At first I was going to defend /usr/share/doc/package/api, but
having something like /usr/share/javadoc/package would be a nice
corollary to /usr/share/man.
- name 'apidoc' is not specificaly related
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin A. Burton) writes:
Because most people won't care about API documentation. If I want to download
and use KOffice I obviously don't care about API documentation.
Do you know of any Unix installation that comes without sections 2
and 3? ;-)
In regards to your
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Guillaume Rousse [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We would like your opinion about this proposition:
Package documentation usualy goes in a distinct subdirectory under
/usr/share/doc, as established by FHS. Java software also comes with
50 matches
Mail list logo
