Michal Svec wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Jiri Srain wrote:
We already have eg. the yast2-devel package which contains only documentation for developers. I'd find it consistent calling the packages this way (eg. yast2-installatoin-devel in thexample above).
I checked with local packagers, there is no rule on how such packages should be caleld. There are already some -devel-doc packages in autobuild, but they are just about five.
Any other ideas?
How about removing the auto generated documentation from all packages and put it either to a standalone package or on the web or both?
Both could be done automatically, from svn or current packages and would save space in current packages and would just need one additional package.
Creating one additional package containing all auto-generated wouldn't work because that would need to be product-based decision. Some YaST packages can be part of the CD/DVD installation media but not on FTP tree or vice versa. BTW: Building an SVN tree is not an easy task... The documentation needs to be generated during the package-build because that's the only way to keep in consistent (and sometimes the only way to get it built). Putting documentation on web needs a web-synchronization and documentation of our packages changes as we develop them. YaST documentation is only created for released products (http://forgeftp.novell.com/yast/doc/) but we want other developers to know the FACTORY status as well. Building the whole documentation is also quite uneasy (I've just built SLES10 SP1 documentation, I know what I'm talking about :) ) This might be a long discussion about pros and cons. Lukas