On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 06:27 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote: > On 5 August 2010 21:49, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Yaah -- so if it's useful documentation, then I'd be against creating a rule > > that bans it. The next question would be whether it's useful or not.... > > Public vs private certainly sounds like one thing to look at. However, some > > libraries might want to ship information about their private interfaces for > > people who want to help hack on the library so it's not a 100% thing that > > I'd want to enforce with a Guideline.... > > > > Perhaps in these two specific cases it would be best to open bugs for the > > maintainers to look at whether some of the documentation in here isn't > > considered useful and could be left out. > > I have to agree with Toshio here - it would be a bad move to be > banning sub-packaged docs. In the case of root I can say that the root > docs sub-package is very useful. Sigh. No one is suggesting banning sub-packaged docs. I find them quite useful myself. My suggestion was to limit the size of automatically generated documentation. However, the feedback I'm getting seems to suggest that a number of people disagree with me. :) I've taken a look at the root source rpm, and it looks like root-doc is generated by root itself *after* root has been completely built (rather than as part of root's build process). I've opened a bug, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=621812 suggesting that the documentation generation be moved even later, into the %post section of the root-doc install. This means the documentation will be generated on the user's machine, eliminating the need for a massive download. Jonathan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
