docs in dist (was Re: 2.1.8-beta available for Testing and Voting)

[Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>]

Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 11:16:18AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>> The 2.1.8 tarball no longer includes the XML Files for generating the 
>>> documentation.  Only the generated HTML Files are packaged.
>> -1 - this doesn't help folks contribute patches to docs.
> 
> We were already removing the .xml$ files, the only change is that now we
> don't distribute the orphaned .xml.meta$ and .xml.[language-code]$.

Yes, but was that a good idea?

Does it make sense to have, essentially, a binary docs distribution as 
part of our source tarball?

Just go all the way and rm -rf docs/manual when building.  We've been 
talking about it for a while.  People are much better off if they either 
use the online docs or grab a set of docs that are appropriate to their 
needs (windows help, single-language tarball, etc).  The docs aren't 
viewable in a default install in 2.1 anyway.

Joshua.