On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
Sure, it is just a draft. Things can be added or replaced. Maybe "possible" is not the best word. What would be better? "feasible", "desirable", "affords tangible improvement" ?
Orcan
It is "possible" in that one can perform the regeneration operation without any obvious errors. It is not "desirable" in that there is a reasonable possibility of nonobvious errors; that is, errors that are detectable only by viewing the generated documentation and furthermore perhaps only readily obvious to someone familiar with how the documentation is intended to be rendered.On 6/18/09 5:03 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
On 6/18/09 2:42 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
Hi,
Toshio asked me to write up a proposal for clarification of the
removal of pre-built binaries. I came up with two proposals. I'd
like
to have them considered and voted separately.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Removal_of_pre-built_binaries
In general, this is simply a nonstarter for Doxygen-generated HTML
documentation. There is nontrivial (and generally unpredictable)
variance in the style sheet that Doxygen generates from one version
to the next. Accordingly, the interactions between this style sheet
any any that the package upstream may have added cannot be foreseen.
That's why the statement starts with "If possible..."
The point is that, in light of this, the guideline should be that these files should *not* be regenerated unless doing so affords some tangible improvement.
Sure, it is just a draft. Things can be added or replaced. Maybe "possible" is not the best word. What would be better? "feasible", "desirable", "affords tangible improvement" ?
Orcan
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
