Hi Aaron, On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 09:52:04AM -0500, Aaron M. Ucko wrote: > [...] > > OK. In fact, I'm not sure what's the best place to put the > > documentation. > > I think I'm going to move the documentation to the dummy package and perhaps > > create symbolic links in the rest. Anything against that? > > The problem with that is that the dummy package won't necessarily be > installed -- unless you set up circular dependencies, but we're trying > to cut down on those.
Yes, I know it it's necessarily installed, but I thought that it was a
good enough compromise (for simplicity and don't get repeated files). I never
thought about circular dependencies, don't worry ;-)
> Given that the documentation is still pretty
> small in an absolute sense, it should be okay to leave it as it is and
> just rename the doc-base files as I suggested. Alternatively, you
> could split it out into a new -common or -doc package, but the
> ftpmasters might consider that to be overkill.
We're currently discussing how to package Ruby libraries in
[EMAIL PROTECTED], that's why I haven't uploaded a new version yet. I think
I'm going to fix the doc-base thing, and in another upload, when we have the
proposal for the new Ruby policy, I'll fix it "completely".
--
Esteban Manchado Velázquez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
EuropeSwPatentFree - http://EuropeSwPatentFree.hispalinux.es
Help spread it through the Net in signatures, webpages, whatever!
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
