On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:11:23 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 02/15/2011 03:59 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > > Wrote the draft proposal for it: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/HtmlDocs > > Comments from my part: > > 1. texinfos need special preparation to be able to convert them to html. > This applies to many cases, but does not apply in general. OK, I believe a machine-generated HTML is good enough as the first step. Possible specific problems can be fixed up as normal Bugs later. > 2. html is just one amongst many formats texinfos can be (if the > texinfos have been prepared for) converted to. Some list of formats is given on the Wiki page. > I don't see any reason to give html preference over one of the other > formats. It's some people's preference, but definitely not all (e.g. I > prefer pdf). I prefer INFO over all the other ones. But I remember I was using HTML before I got used to the only provided INFO. When a separate -doc subpackage is provided I believe providing all the tree of INFO, HTML and PDF is not a problem (HTML as I dislike PDF over the other paging-free formats). > 3. Many of these html docs are available on-line - Adding local copies > to Fedora only adds bloat to the distro As we face it on freenode#gdb channel the online versions do not match the local copies. And I do not want to be dependent on network with notebook. > 4. The GNU standards's officical documentation format is info. Yes, just Fedora is not GNU. Thanks, Jan -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
