|
|
On 2008-07-28 09:58, Josip Rodin wrote:
> The existing 'publish' rules are risky enough.
Too risky for my taste.
> Anyway, I think we've spent a lot of time musing about this alternative
> solution, which may give people the wrong impression.
I don't understand this sentence. Which impression and to whom?
> The cleanest solution
> is to have the necessary tool-chain packages backported
For me the cleanest solution is to use "officially" packaged
documentation for our web pages, not some by-pass. This provides
for public review of documentation _as packaged_, enables our
users to install the documentation in exactly the same version
as seen on our web pages, and does not suffer from not
understanding "Build-Depends". Oops, I'm almost explaining,
what's so cool about using a software package manager instead of
"make install"/"make publish" ;~)
> - it's a useful
> thing for everyone, and we are after all a community of packagers - it's
> not that hard for us to make backports :)
Absolutely true. However, because "make publish" doesn't know
about Build-Depends, we will once in a while suffer from errors
here, until somebody discovers which backport is necessary and
actually does it (e.g. of docbook*, texlive-*, XML toolchain).
OTOH, if a documentation writer really wants the latest SVN
revision to reflect on the web page, they can just run an
svn-buildpackage+dput and they're done.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-REQUEST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
|