Re: Documentation in the tarball?

"Sebastian Geerken" <[email protected]> 25 May 2015 01:29:50 +0200

Newsgroups	gmane.comp.web.dillo.devel
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

On So, Mai 24, 2015, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
> On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 02:25:49PM +0200, Sebastian Geerken wrote:
> > Hi!
> > 
> > Does it make sense to include all developer documentation into the
> > tarball? As an alternative, only user documentation, plus a notice
> > where to find the developer docs, could be included, while the rest
> > can only be found in the repository at hg.dillo.org. I assume that
> > someone who is interested in the internals of dillo will anyway refer
> > to the lastest version from the Hg repository.
> > 
> > Keeping it out of the tarball would have advantages:
> > 
> > - It makes the tarball smaller.
> > 
> > - We developers would not have to think that much about file sizes of
> >   the documentation: these files do not go into the tarball; and for
> >   those using the lastest version from the Hg repository, it should be
> >   reasonable to spend some more disc space.
> > 
> > What do you think?
> 
>   One disadvantage is no longer having both synced in the same
> tarball.
> 
>   Now, if docs live in the same hg repo as sources, but just don't
> make it into the tarball, I see no problems. They are kept in sync for
> devs, and the tarball goes smaller, in which case I do agree.

I want to keep them in the same repository, especially since Doxygen
works also on the sources. I thought of something simple like removing
most files from EXTRA_DIST in doc/Makefile.am. (BTW, EXTRA_DIST has
been poorly maintained in the past, so the tarball did have an
incomplete documentation sometimes.)

Sebastian

_______________________________________________
Dillo-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.dillo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 473 B)