Re: [yast-devel] Let's make minimal system smaller :) (41 MB)
Dne pondělí 23 červenec 2007 17:00 Stephan Kulow napsal(a):
Am Montag 23 Juli 2007 schrieb Lukas Ocilka:
Jiri Srain wrote:
Are we really allowed to ship the package without the text of the license?
OTOH, currently there are two copies of the license in the package, and (at least according to RPMlint) they can be replaced by a link to package containing licenses.
My patch didn't remove the license from the original yast2-installation
:) The same (license) file is in both yast2-installation and
yast2-installation-doc.
It doesn't have to be in yast2-installation-doc - it has to be in the sources and it's good to have it in one of the binary packages. It doesn't have to be in every one of them.
Do we want to call these packages -doc? It may be confusing, one may expect the end-user documentation in these packages, but what he finds is (mostly) the autogenerated documentation targeted for developers. 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? Jiri -- Regards, Jiri Srain YaST Team Leader --------------------------------------------------------------------- SUSE LINUX, s.r.o. e-mail: jsrain@suse.cz Lihovarska 1060/12 tel: +420 284 028 959 190 00 Praha 9 fax: +420 284 028 951 Czech Republic http://www.suse.cz
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jiri Srain wrote: ...
Do we want to call these packages -doc? It may be confusing, one may expect the end-user documentation in these packages, but what he finds is (mostly) the autogenerated documentation targeted for developers.
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?
- -devel-doc sounds straightforward and sane to me. cheers - -- -o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/ /\\ <pascal.bleser@skynet.be> <guru@unixtech.be> _\_v The more things change, the more they stay insane. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGpg/Wr3NMWliFcXcRAruIAKCkhjt4X7DPetAVFXGsMgK/lsAbFwCfeRSM /cPx+xdNrK2uhLqzDUydq0o= =gEtl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: yast-devel+help@opensuse.org
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. Michal -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: yast-devel+help@opensuse.org
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
participants (4)
-
Jiri Srain -
Lukas Ocilka -
Michal Svec -
Pascal Bleser