On quinta-feira, 6 de junho de 2013 18.51.44, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 01:07:06PM -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: > > On Thursday 06 June 2013 08:58:53 Thiago Macieira wrote: > > > On quinta-feira, 6 de junho de 2013 17.57.08, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > > > for the packagers, it would be the best solution to simply include the > > > > docs directly into the particular source tarballs. > > > > > > The drawback is a major increase in the size of those tarballs. > > hmm, yeah. what are the numbers?
Back in Qt 4 days, the increase for the full document set was about 60-70 MB. After compression (the QCH file doesn't compress well, and the HTML help files compress to the size of the QCH file). > > And some of us would be required to re generate in order to asset that > > we can build it from source, so it wouldn't help a lot. > > that seems like absurd puritanism to me. are you also required to run > autoconf even though each source tarball contains a pre-made configure? > also, some time ago, qt didn't come with all the sources, so you were > forced to use pre-generated artificats. did you refuse to ship that? I agree here. You have the option and the ability to rebuild from sources if you need to, but you don't have to. You don't need to re-generate cross-platform pre- generated files. I recommend simply accepting the pre-built documentation. However, tarballs where the "preferred form for making modifications" isn't present are in violation of OSS licenses and, in specific, the DFSG. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
