[Numpy-discussion] missing doc dir in the official tarball
Sun Dec 21 07:50:32 CST 2008
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Pauli Virtanen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:05:57 +0100, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Pauli Virtanen <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:15:43 +0900, David Cournapeau wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 7:43 PM, Ondrej Certik <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>>>> Just to make it clear -- I think the docs should not be generated in
>>>>> the tarball -- only the sources should be there.
>>>> I agree this makes more sense for you, as a packager, but I am not
>>>> sure it makes much sense to put the doc sources in the tarball for
>>>> users (Building numpy should only require python + a C compiler;
>>>> building the doc is more difficult -you need at least sphinx and all
>>>> its dependencies).
>>>> For audiolab, I put the generated doc, thinking if people want to mess
>>>> with the doc, they are knowledgeable enough to deal with svn - but I
>>>> did not think about the packagers :) I am not sure what's the best
>>>> solution: maybe put both in the (released) source tarball ?
>>> I'd say that we put the source for the documentation to the
>>> documentation tarball, and distribute the built HTML+whatever
>>> documentation in a separate package.
>> Why not to just include the *sources* together with numpy, and possibly
>> include html+whatever in a separate documentation package?
> That's what I tried to say, but mistyped "source" as "documentation".
Ok, so we all seem to agree that having (at least) the source of docs
together with the main numpy tarball is a good thing. I'll try to have
a look at this.
More information about the Numpy-discussion