On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
On 6/18/09 5:03 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
>
> On 6/18/09 2:42 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Toshio asked me to write up a proposal for clarification of the
> removal of pre-built binaries. I came up with two proposals. I'd
> like
> to have them considered and voted separately.
>
>
>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Removal_of_pre-built_binaries
>
>
> In general, this is simply a nonstarter for Doxygen-generated HTML
> documentation. There is nontrivial (and generally unpredictable)
> variance in the style sheet that Doxygen generates from one version
> to the next. Accordingly, the interactions between this style sheet
> any any that the package upstream may have added cannot be foreseen.
>
>
> That's why the statement starts with "If possible..."
>
It is "possible" in that one can perform the regeneration operation without
any obvious errors. It is not "desirable" in that there is a reasonable
possibility of nonobvious errors; that is, errors that are detectable only
by viewing the generated documentation and furthermore perhaps only readily
obvious to someone familiar with how the documentation is intended to be
rendered.
The point is that, in light of this, the guideline should be that these
files should *not* be regenerated unless doing so affords some tangible
improvement.
Sure, it is just a draft. Things can be added or replaced. Maybe
"possible"
is not the best word. What would be better? "feasible", "desirable",
"affords tangible improvement" ?
Orcan