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: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim <at> guixotic.coop>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#24099: closed (A policy on how to choose the installed
 documentation formats.)
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2025 13:44:02 +0000

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

Your message dated Sat, 12 Jul 2025 22:42:36 +0900
with message-id <87a5598r03.fsf <at> guixotic.coop>
and subject line Re: bug#24099: A policy on how to choose the installed documentation formats.
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #24099,
regarding A policy on how to choose the installed documentation formats.
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> 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: 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

[Message part 3 (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

Previous Next

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