From owner-freebsd-doc Thu May 17 17:28:53 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com (sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com [171.71.163.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DF4437B422; Thu, 17 May 2001 17:28:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bmah@cisco.com) Received: from bmah-freebsd-0.cisco.com (bmah-freebsd-0.cisco.com [171.70.84.42]) by sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com (8.11.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id f4I0StU25422; Thu, 17 May 2001 17:28:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from bmah@localhost) by bmah-freebsd-0.cisco.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f4I0Snn05073; Thu, 17 May 2001 17:28:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bmah) Message-Id: <200105180028.f4I0Snn05073@bmah-freebsd-0.cisco.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.3.1+ 05/14/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Brooks Davis Cc: Nik Clayton , doc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Policy on image source files in the CVS tree In-Reply-To: <20010517113103.A25222@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> References: <20010517122744.B3349@catkin.nothing-going-on.org> <20010517113103.A25222@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> Comments: In-reply-to Brooks Davis message dated "Thu, 17 May 2001 11:31:03 -0700." From: "Bruce A. Mah" Reply-To: bmah@FreeBSD.ORG X-Face: g~c`.{#4q0"(V*b#g[i~rXgm*w;:nMfz%_RZLma)UgGN&=j`5vXoU^@n5v4:OO)c["!w)nD/!!~e4Sj7LiT'6*wZ83454H""lb{CC%T37O!!'S$S&D}sem7I[A 2V%N&+ X-Image-Url: http://www.employees.org/~bmah/Images/bmah-cisco-small.gif X-Url: http://www.employees.org/~bmah/ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_228134564P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 17:28:49 -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org --==_Exmh_228134564P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii If memory serves me right, Brooks Davis wrote: > I think it makes sense to allow actual (or even require) that the actual > source file be in the tree, but I wonder the proposed policy isn't too > strict. Specificaly, it seems that the screenshot tools aren't very big > and don't require X so it might be better to for people to have them and > adding them to the infrastructure. Where to draw the line is clearly > hard, but it feels like screen shots should be first class images in > OS documentation. I think that allowing automatic builds of *PNG or *.TXT files from *.SCR files (or whatever the extension is) makes sense, particularly if the tools for working with *.SCR files are coming into the base system. That said, this would require any machine building the docs to have a fairly up-to-date -CURRENT or 4-STABLE, right? (Once the relevent programs get committed, that is.) Have we ever had a situation like that before? Bruce. --==_Exmh_228134564P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.5 (FreeBSD) Comment: Exmh version 2.3.1+ 05/14/2001 iD8DBQE7BGzB2MoxcVugUsMRAqsHAKDaq84o/eJKwB1hW7Cl5Oz6/aPWsACfYrK0 WDd6o100KI+8gvmcCh3B6bI= =WYdW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_228134564P-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message