Re: [Gnewsense-dev] Re: Important bug reports (GNU documentation missing)

[Karl Goetz]

On Sun, 30 May 2010 13:22:55 +0200
address@hidden wrote:

> Quoting Karl Goetz <address@hidden>:
> >
> > Are you planning to provide fixed packages for the entire program
> > (eg, a new gcc package), or just a deb of the doco to sit beside it?
> >
> Just a deb for the doco.
> 
> I think I will make a meta-package called `gnu-doc' having  
> `binutils-doc' and the like as dependencies. That way, Richard will
> be able to have all GNU doc with one command, while people working
> with, say `gawk', will only have to install `gawk-doc'.

i'd say just stick it in one package. we'll provide binutils/emacs/gawk
by default, so it won't hurt people to have the doco.

> Do you think I better have to work on files from:
> - `apt-get source $SOFTWARE-doc' from metad,
> - or source files from gnu.org (metad version number)?

gnu.org doco - debians may not even match the version shipped.

> >> Given those informations, do you think I better have to just edit
> >> the script to copy html files and directory recursively from
> >> {binutils,gcc,gdb} website to a directory of the user calling the
> >> script? In this case, in which user's directory should I copy this
> >> html doc?
> >
> > I would suggest putting the info files in a bzr repo, and not
> > scraping off the html.
> 
> binutils, gcc and gdb info files are already on  
> http://bzr.savannah.org/r/gnewsense/docs.

nice.
kk

-- 
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature