[RCR] Include CONFIG::Config['rubydocdir'] in rbconfig.rb

Hi folks,

I apologise if people have read this RCR and are not interested, but
this is what I consider to be an important RCR, not a merely
convenient one, and I may have done it a disservice by burying its
mention in a previous thread.

At any rate, it has not attracted many votes, and no comments, so I’d
like to point you to http://www.rubygarden.org/article.php?sid=319 if
you are interested in registering an opinion on this.

Summary: if Ruby had a standard documentation directory, then
installers could install documentation there. A typical Ruby
installation does contain documentation in a sensible place, but this
location is not retrievable through the normal Config[‘xyz’]
mechanism.

Thanks,
Gavin

Hi,

···

In message “[RCR] Include CONFIG::Config[‘rubydocdir’] in rbconfig.rb” on 03/10/01, Gavin Sinclair gsinclair@soyabean.com.au writes:

Summary: if Ruby had a standard documentation directory, then
installers could install documentation there. A typical Ruby
installation does contain documentation in a sensible place, but this
location is not retrievable through the normal Config[‘xyz’]
mechanism.

Currently it does not have one. Where do you think it should be, if
Ruby should have a standard documentation directory. And how far
should it cover? Libraries? Applications?

						matz.

On FreeBSD Ruby documentation is stored in /usr/local/share/doc/ruby,
so if I install ruby, ruby libs, or ruby apps on FreeBSD, that’s
where I expect documentation to end up.

FWIW, install.rb puts things in the correct place if you have a data/doc
directory (data maps to /usr/local/share).

···

Yukihiro Matsumoto (matz@ruby-lang.org) wrote:

In message “[RCR] Include CONFIG::Config[‘rubydocdir’] in rbconfig.rb” > on 03/10/01, Gavin Sinclair gsinclair@soyabean.com.au writes:

Summary: if Ruby had a standard documentation directory, then
installers could install documentation there. A typical Ruby
installation does contain documentation in a sensible place, but this
location is not retrievable through the normal Config[‘xyz’]
mechanism.

Currently it does not have one. Where do you think it should be, if
Ruby should have a standard documentation directory. And how far
should it cover? Libraries? Applications?


Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://segment7.net
All messages signed with fingerprint:
FEC2 57F1 D465 EB15 5D6E 7C11 332A 551C 796C 9F04

first of all, this idea is fantastic. however, i think it would be made
better if a standard doccumentation format was also agreed upon. to me, this
choice is very simple: html is the only doc format that will easily work on
mac, windows, and *nix. rdoc is the best of the html doc generators. ergo,
rdoc wins my vote. personally, i prefer man pages but…

IMHO, it would be very, very, very, cool if, for example, each package had it’s own
rdoc directory which lived along_side the package in site_ruby

this would allow, for example, one to do this:

netscape file:/usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/package/rdoc/index.html

to see the docs for ‘package’

furthermore, rdoc could be generated for docs for ALL of a site_ruby dir,
allowing one to

netscape file:/usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rdoc

to see the rdocs for EVERY INSTALLED COMPONENT on your system. this could be
super cool.

for all you java developers out there you will see where i am going with this,
if rubyists could agree on a place and format for docs pages could be
generated to doccument

a) all the ruby internal classes
b) all the installed classes on your system (combined)
c) all the installed classes on your system (individually)

if you use the pickaxe html page ‘Built-in Classes and Methods’, as i do, as
java programmers use the javadoc api pages - you will appreciate where i’m
going with this. imaging that there was also a ‘Site-Ruby Classes and
Methods’ page, and how that would help prgrammers jump into the ruby language.

my two cents.

-a

···

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

Hi,

In message “[RCR] Include CONFIG::Config[‘rubydocdir’] in rbconfig.rb” > on 03/10/01, Gavin Sinclair gsinclair@soyabean.com.au writes:

Summary: if Ruby had a standard documentation directory, then
installers could install documentation there. A typical Ruby
installation does contain documentation in a sensible place, but this
location is not retrievable through the normal Config[‘xyz’]
mechanism.

Currently it does not have one. Where do you think it should be, if
Ruby should have a standard documentation directory. And how far
should it cover? Libraries? Applications?

====================================

Ara Howard
NOAA Forecast Systems Laboratory
Information and Technology Services
Data Systems Group
R/FST 325 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80305-3328
Email: ara.t.howard@noaa.gov
Phone: 303-497-7238
Fax: 303-497-7259
The difference between art and science is that science is what we understand
well enough to explain to a computer. Art is everything else.
– Donald Knuth, “Discover”
~ > /bin/sh -c ‘for lang in ruby perl; do $lang -e “print "\x3a\x2d\x29\x0a"”; done’
====================================

Summary: if Ruby had a standard documentation directory, then
installers could install documentation there. A typical Ruby
installation does contain documentation in a sensible place, but this
location is not retrievable through the normal Config[‘xyz’]
mechanism.

Currently it does not have one. Where do you think it should be, if
Ruby should have a standard documentation directory. And how far
should it cover? Libraries? Applications?

The documentation dir should probably only handle libraries. With
applications, it shouldn’t matter what language they are written in, so
the documentation should go in the same place as any other program
documentation. You wouldn’t have /usr/share/doc/c/gawk/README or
something like that.

Libraries are used when people are writing something in the same
programming language, so it should make sense to put those in something
like /usr/share/doc/ruby/ruby-gtk2/README.

So maybe we want Config[‘libdocs’] or something that shows it is for
ruby libraries and applications.

···


Zachary P. Landau kapheine@hypa.net
GPG: gpg --recv-key 0x24E5AD99 | http://kapheine.hypa.net/kapheine.asc

My Cygwin setup has these directories:

/usr/local/doc/ruby/ri-1.8b
/usr/local/doc/ruby/ruby-1.8.0

So that covers an application and the language. Other applications
would be welcome there, e.g.

/usr/local/doc/ruby/rdict-x.y
/usr/local/doc/ruby/rcalc-m.n

And libraries would be a good fit as well:

/usr/local/doc/ruby/amrita-1.0.1
/usr/local/doc/ruby/amrita-1.0.1/README etc
/usr/local/doc/ruby/amrita-1.0.1/rdoc/index.html etc

As for the standard library, that could perhaps be documented in

/usr/local/doc/ruby/ruby-1.8.0/lib/…

Although http://stdlib-doc.rubyforge.org will be the best place to get
standard library documentation before too long.

Gavin

···

On Thursday, October 2, 2003, 1:17:35 AM, Yukihiro wrote:

Hi,

In message “[RCR] Include CONFIG::Config[‘rubydocdir’] in rbconfig.rb” > on 03/10/01, Gavin Sinclair gsinclair@soyabean.com.au writes:

Summary: if Ruby had a standard documentation directory, then
installers could install documentation there. A typical Ruby
installation does contain documentation in a sensible place, but this
location is not retrievable through the normal Config[‘xyz’]
mechanism.

Currently it does not have one. Where do you think it should be, if
Ruby should have a standard documentation directory. And how far
should it cover? Libraries? Applications?

“Ara.T.Howard” wrote:

Hi,

Summary: if Ruby had a standard documentation directory, then
installers could install documentation there. A typical Ruby
installation does contain documentation in a sensible place, but this
location is not retrievable through the normal Config[‘xyz’]
mechanism.

Currently it does not have one. Where do you think it should be, if
Ruby should have a standard documentation directory. And how far
should it cover? Libraries? Applications?

first of all, this idea is fantastic. however, i think it would be made
better if a standard doccumentation format was also agreed upon.

Given that the Ruby source contains all of its docs in RD format, and
that you can generate html, man or rdoc pages (I think) from rd docs,
why should we settle on html?

Now, if someone wants to include a massive rdoc index for all the
builtin stuff, that’s fine with me. In any case, let’s just settle on
the directory first. And yes, I already voted on the RCR. :slight_smile:

Regards,

Dan

···

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

In message “[RCR] Include CONFIG::Config[‘rubydocdir’] in rbconfig.rb” > > on 03/10/01, Gavin Sinclair gsinclair@soyabean.com.au writes:

[snip]

first of all, this idea is fantastic. however, i think it would be
made
better if a standard doccumentation format was also agreed upon. to
me, this
choice is very simple: html is the only doc format that will easily
work on
mac, windows, and *nix. rdoc is the best of the html doc generators.
ergo,
rdoc wins my vote. personally, i prefer man pages but…

I think every package should have rdoc documentation (which can be
generated upon installation or included in the distribution). I also
think every command line application (at a minimum) should have man
pages and useful help and usage output. There are tools to generate man
pages from other document formats (although better and easier to use
tools would be good). The above applies to packages in at least the
beta stage.

[snip]

I agree completely with all the other stuff you said.

Regards,

Mark

···

On Wednesday, October 1, 2003, at 03:02 PM, Ara.T.Howard wrote:

[snip]

The documentation dir should probably only handle libraries.

In this case of Ruby, I disagree. Given the transparency of Ruby
source, there’s not that much difference between libraries and many
applications. Many applications have discrete models that are most
analogous to libraries also.

With applications, it shouldn’t matter what language they are written
in, so
the documentation should go in the same place as any other program
documentation. You wouldn’t have /usr/share/doc/c/gawk/README or
something like that.

This begs the question of where application documentation, regardless
of language, should go. I would like Unix/Linux/BSD etc. to have a more
accessible standard for this, for command line apps, beyond man and
info pages. GUI apps can, of course, have their own help menu item. The
command line help is usually, properly in my opinion, abbreviated. It
would be nice, however, to at least know where to find Ruby application
documentation, even if one has to search for documentation (other than
man pages) for other command line applications.

[snip]

Regards,

Mark

This mixes libs and doc, which I feel is very, very bad.

If you want to save space, you have to do extra tedious work to snip out
the rdoc directories, which is not a problem if you have them sitting
with the rest of the system docs. Furthermore, it violates principles
of good design. Nothing else is storing documentation in your lib
directories, so why should Ruby? lib is for libraries, let’s keep it
that way.

···

Ara.T.Howard (ahoward@fsl.noaa.gov) wrote:

IMHO, it would be very, very, very, cool if, for example, each
package had it’s own rdoc directory which lived along_side the
package in site_ruby


Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://segment7.net
All messages signed with fingerprint:
FEC2 57F1 D465 EB15 5D6E 7C11 332A 551C 796C 9F04