2010/8/9 Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx>: > Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >> Depending on the technologies and applications involved I could see >> duplication being okay when one format is meant for people utilizing >> less /usr/share/doc/foo/* vs running /usr/bin/documentationviewer or >> /usr/bin/programmer-ide > > That's the case for the KDE stuff: plain HTML is for plain browsers, QCH is > for Qt Assistant and KDevelop. > > The only issue is: kdelibs-apidocs is one of the largest binary packages in > Fedora… But IMHO we'll really want that QCH. (In fact, we've been discussing > building it for a while, I've just been caught up in other stuff.) KDevelop > not showing KDE apidocs is a poor state of affairs and a regression from > Fedora 12 / KDevelop 3.5. At least the QCH is one file, so it won't bloat > the file list in the repository metadata. :-) > > FYI, I've put up QCH apidocs for discussion in the next KDE SIG meeting > (Tuesday 14:00 UTC / 16:00 CEST / 10:00 (AM) EDT / 07:00 (AM) PDT). > > Kevin Kofler > How about qt-doc? Currently, it bundles src/qch/html docs, the src image files are completely useless and duplicate with files in html directory. The content of the qch and html docs is identical, since assistant_adp is dropped by qt 4.7, I suggest to split html docs into another subpackage or simply drop html docs. Personally, I only use assistant to open qch format docs. Regards, Chen Lei -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
