[gentoo-dev] Suggestion for updates to dodoc

[gentoo-dev] Suggestion for updates to dodoc

[Karl Trygve Kalleberg]

Hi gang.

The dodoc command in ebuilds should handle HTML files a lot better than it does now. Instead of naively compressing html files, they should be put /usr/share/doc/${P}/html instead.

This would be a very simple fix, if it wasn't for the fact that we sometimes want to copy entire HTML-trees with image files and all (such as the documentation for python or qt).

However, the first step in the right direction is to not compress the html files, since the browsers do not understand html.gz.

Karl T

Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for updates to dodoc

[Daniel Robbins]

On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 08:35:11PM +0200, Karl Trygve Kalleberg wrote:

> The dodoc command in ebuilds should handle HTML files a lot better than it
> does now. Instead of naively compressing html files, they should be put
> /usr/share/doc/${P}/html instead.  This would be a very simple fix, if it
> wasn't for the fact that we sometimes want to copy entire HTML-trees with
> image files and all (such as the documentation for python or qt).

I'm ok with doing this; would you be willing to improve dodoc and post your
improvements here?  As long as they are sane, I doubt anyone will complain
and I'll roll them into the next version of Portage.

Best Regards,

-- 
Daniel Robbins					<drobbins@gentoo.org>
Chief Architect/President			http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.			

Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for updates to dodoc

[Morgan Christiansson]

Daniel Robbins wrote:

>On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 08:35:11PM +0200, Karl Trygve Kalleberg wrote:
>
>>The dodoc command in ebuilds should handle HTML files a lot better than it
>>does now. Instead of naively compressing html files, they should be put
>>/usr/share/doc/${P}/html instead.  This would be a very simple fix, if it
>>wasn't for the fact that we sometimes want to copy entire HTML-trees with
>>image files and all (such as the documentation for python or qt).
>>
>
>I'm ok with doing this; would you be willing to improve dodoc and post your
>improvements here?  As long as they are sane, I doubt anyone will complain
>and I'll roll them into the next version of Portage.
>
>Best Regards,
>
Browsers can handle .html.gz, but the links will need to be modified.

Also i noticed that mozilla 0.9.4 prompt's to save files by default, i 
know that it can handle gzip comressed content however.