Re: How text files / documentation affect package licensing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




Dne 15. 08. 22 v 1:19 Demi Marie Obenour napsal(a):
On 8/11/22 10:23, Ben Beasley wrote:
I don’t enjoy this topic at all, but I feel obligated to contribute some relevant links.

A previous discussion on the packaging mailing list[1] concluded that it doesn’t seem possible to package HTML documentation generated by almost any system, including at least Sphinx, Doxygen, and mkdocs, in a way that complies with guidelines around pre-compiled and bundled JS, CSS, and fonts. See also [2], which started that discussion.

There might be a conflict between this situation and certain language-specific guidelines that prescribe packaging standardized documentation packages. For example, [3].

[1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/LLUAURXZVADATHK65HBPPBHKF4EM4UC3/
[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2006555
[3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2097267
The best solution here is to patch Sphinx and Doxygen so they do not
produce nonredistributable output.


I am trying to wrap my head around this for RubyGems / RDoc for quite some while, but it is unfortunately easier to say then do. Several issues:

1) If you separate the template from generated documentation, then the documentation is not self contained anymore and transferable to different location, which might break user expectations.

2) If you unbundle the template, then you should also unbundle e.g. the font or JS from the template.

3) The system is not designed to support this scenario and I am not sure if the change would be upstreamable.

4) Even if all the points above were solved, then the update of template would need trigger regenerating all the documentation, to ensure the documentation is not broken. You might argue, that the font change or some JS library change or what not are just minor changes, but OTOH, you don't want to ship broken documentation.



Vít


Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux