Re: libglade frustration

[David Nečas (Yeti) <yeti physics muni cz>]

On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 05:55:36AM +0000, tomas tuxteam de wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 12:00:37AM +0100, David Nečas (Yeti) wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 02:44:21PM -0800, wallace owen l-3com com wrote:
> [...]
> > libglade developers do not produce any binary packages.
> >
> > Their product does come with examples.
> >
> > Requiring that the examples have to be included in full in
> > the text of the manual instead of in a compilable form as
> > standalone files is silly.
>
> You took it back to the point. I think metaphors don't help much here.
> The question is whether usage examples belong to the documentation or
> not. As we see, this question is debatable. Personally, I'd side clearly
> with the "yes" side.

Definitely, but I'd put only snippets and smaller examples
to the manual itself.  I hope we agree it makes no sense to
put the source of gtk-demo-like programs to the manual.  So
we have the following possibilities:

1. Convince all OS vendors to stop making binary packages
   and libglade devs to make these packages instead, with
   examples included.

2. Convince all OS vendors to include code samples in the
   devel/devel-doc package.

3. Add a note to a prominent place in the docs that the
   source code comes with examples, and let people grab the
   real thing instead of what OS vendors decide to
   distribute.

Yeti


--
Whatever.