On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 2:19 AM Dan Čermák <dan.cermak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi list, > > if a -devel package could include API docs from upstream, should these > be packaged too or not? This recently came up during a package review, > where the package submitter said that probably everyone reads the online > docs anyway (where he imho has a point, I think I never read installed > API docs, except for man pages). > > What's the official stance on this? The packaging guidelines > (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation) > just say: > > Any relevant documentation included in the source distribution should > > be included in the package in the proper documentation directory > Which begs the question: are API docs relevant documentation? > In general, API docs are considered relevant documentation. However, if they are significantly large, they are usually split out into their own subpackage (e.g. rpm-apidocs, et al). That said, if it's too difficult to generate them, then it's certainly fine not to. It's important to note that online documentation is not necessarily indicative of what the local package is capable of, so having documentation that actually applies to your package available is useful for when those differences matter. Also, websites die, so... :/ -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-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/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
