[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Policy for documentation of ELPA

From: Evgeny M. Zubok
Subject: Re: Policy for documentation of ELPA
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 13:37:50 +0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux)

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

>> I have written documentation (an initial version) for one of the ELPA
>> package. The source is the texinfo file. I see that auctex provides the
>> documentation as exported .info file along with Postscript and PDF in
>> ./doc directory. Muse also provides the .info file. No package that
>> provides source of documentation (texinfo files, PostScript diagrams and
>> figures, etc). What is the current (if any) policy for documentation?
>> Should the package also contain sources, just in case if someone want to
>> improve the documentation?
> It should definitely contain the source (in this case the Texinfo) if at
> all possible.

And what about the documentation in compiled format? org-mode and muse
have its own upstream development and they keep the documentation
sources there. The developers commit only user-readable documentation
into ELPA and they don't commit the texinfo. `debbugs' uses ELPA for
development. So, we have no other option than to store texinfo file in
ELPA. No problem. The main question is about the documentation in human
readable format. ELPA contains the files as they will be installed at
user side, right? Should I manually re-generate the final documentation
every time I have made even the little change in texinfo file? Can I do
it not very often? Where the documentation should arrive when the user
installs the ELPA package?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]