GNU bug report logs - #24099
A policy on how to choose the installed documentation formats.

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: ng0 <ng0 <at> we.make.ritual.n0.is>
Subject: bug#24099: closed (Re: bug#24099: A policy on how to choose the
 installed documentation formats.)
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2025 13:44:03 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your bug report

#24099: A policy on how to choose the installed documentation formats.

which was filed against the guix package, has been closed.

The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to 24099 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.

-- 
24099: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=24099
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim <at> guixotic.coop>
To: ng0 <ng0 <at> we.make.ritual.n0.is>
Cc: 24099-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#24099: A policy on how to choose the installed
 documentation formats.
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2025 22:42:36 +0900

Hi,

ng0 <ng0 <at> we.make.ritual.n0.is> writes:

> I don't think we have what this thread talks about covered in the
> manual.
>
> If we do have though, consider this bug obsolete.
>
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-01/msg00603.html
>
>> > Info > HTML > man > txt > PDF > PS ?
>
>> Roughly, yes.
>
>
> Not the same message, but in the thread:
>
>>     What about installing only HTML?
>>
>>     I find that HTML (and Info, and man) is more convenient to read on-line
>>     than PDFs.  We rarely include PDF documentation in packages.
>>
>>     Of course, avoiding PDF/PS/DVI allows us to remove the dependency
>>     on TeX Live.  Last, from discussions I heard at the Reproducible
>>     Build Summit, I think DVIs and maybe PS/PDFs are not
>>     bit-reproducible out-of-the-box.
>>
>>     WDYT?
>>
>>     Maybe we should have a policy on how to choose the installed
>>     documentation formats.
>>
>>     Ludo’.

8 years have gone by without having such a policy draft/added, and it
hasn't seem to be an issue. In practice most packages install only man
pages, but I personally try to add Info manual where feasible
(e.g. packages whose doc is built via Sphinx).

Closing.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: ng0 <ng0 <at> we.make.ritual.n0.is>
To: GUIX Bugs <bug-guix <at> gnu.org>
Subject: A policy on how to choose the installed documentation formats.
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:21:48 +0000

I don't think we have what this thread talks about covered in the
manual.

If we do have though, consider this bug obsolete.

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-01/msg00603.html

> > Info > HTML > man > txt > PDF > PS ?

> Roughly, yes.


Not the same message, but in the thread:

>     What about installing only HTML?
>
>     I find that HTML (and Info, and man) is more convenient to read on-line
>     than PDFs.  We rarely include PDF documentation in packages.
>
>     Of course, avoiding PDF/PS/DVI allows us to remove the dependency
>     on TeX Live.  Last, from discussions I heard at the Reproducible
>     Build Summit, I think DVIs and maybe PS/PDFs are not
>     bit-reproducible out-of-the-box.
>
>     WDYT?
>
>     Maybe we should have a policy on how to choose the installed
>     documentation formats.
>
>     Ludo’.
                    
-- 
♥Ⓐ  ng0
Current Keys: https://we.make.ritual.n0.is/ng0.txt
For non-prism friendly talk find me on http://www.psyced.org

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.