On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Gaetan Bisson <bisson@archlinux.org> wrote:
[2012-03-23 10:28:30 -0500] Dan McGee:
Just curious- is there any reason to introduce naming changes like this other than personal preference?
Only that I work better with sets of PKGBUILDs with a consistent style; sorry for the inconvenience.
I don't agree with this. Either ship the documentation unzipped, or don't ship it. It is rather useless to people otherwise, IMO.
Okay then, I just won't ship it: unzipped, it takes 91% of the installed size, and is not used by the vast majority of users. Just kill them; people that need them know how to find them on the Internet. This was our philosophy 5 years ago and not sure why we strayed away from it for non-man or non-info stuff. Also of note- even
No big deal, I made it sound worse than it was- just wanted to point out a specific case where it can be an inconvenience on users (e.g. me) that customize things. though compressing it seems to make sense, it can easily make the overall package compression suffer. We already have this issue with manpages. -Dan