[albatross-users] Re: Including EPS files in source tarball

[Andrew McNamara]

>I probably don't have to make an argument for why Dia is bad; this has
>been expressed already. Perhaps I must convince you that including the
>EPS files would be good. My arguments follow.
>
>Including the EPS files in the source tarball would be good because:
>
>      * It benefits users of the Debian package, since building the
>        documentation as part of the entire build process ensures the
>        documentation corresponds to the Albatross version. The
>        introduction of a new Albatross package would see all packages
>        updated at once. There is no risk of mistake or delays due to a
>        separate source package.
>      * It benefits users of the Debian package, since the tests
>        performed on the documentation during the build helps ensure
>        that the examples in the documentation work with the Python
>        version used in Debian.
>      * It benefits users who cannot use Dia to build the documentation,
>        but who don't want to download the separate documentation.
>      * It would benefit those who package Albatross for other systems.
>
>The downside would be a considerably larger tarball. If Dia is ever
>fixed, all of this would go away, of course.

I think I liked your previous suggestion - a separate "albatross-doc"
package. In fact, maybe there should be an "albatross-doc-html" and an
"albatross-doc-pdf" package? (But that sounds like a lot of work).

This will allow people to install just what they want - the docs can be
installed on their corporate intranet server, the albatross module and
nothing else could be installed on bastions, etc.

Failing that, including the eps files sounds like a good idea.

-- 
Andrew McNamara, Senior Developer, Object Craft
http://www.object-craft.com.au/