Re: [RFC] DocBook with .txt or .html versions?

[Jarek Poplawski]

On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 11:29:07PM +1300, Glenn Enright wrote:
> On Thursday 19 October 2006 23:09, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > I'm sorry if I implied... It is not a problem of limited resources.
> > If I can choose I allways tend to install only necessary software.
> I suppose that certainly helps when chasing bugs.

There are also security reasons.

> Did you have an 
> alternative way of building the docs in mind that could be lighter? I 
> admit the tree you described does seem a large pull just so you can 
> read some text for one source package... even if it is the kernel.

Yes. My preferred alternative way is used by 
all the rest of Documentation already.

My other preferred alternative way, used by
many programs like apache, postgresql, mysql,
samba etc. is html, which could be read even 
on consoles with lynx or links. 

If there is a problem of space let it be
accessible in ftp subdirectory at least.

Cheers,
Jarek P.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/