[arch-dev-public] OMG info pages
eliott at cactuswax.net
Tue Apr 22 14:35:16 EDT 2008
On 4/22/08, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Travis Willard <travis at archlinux.org> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I'm really really sick of people making mountains out of the docs
> > > > molehill... it's such a petty issue...
> > > >
> > > > Would anyone honestly care if we removed the !docs option from
> > > > makepkg.conf by default, and let each maintainer add options=(!docs)
> > > > if the docs are too big for a given package?
> > > >
> > > > No need to do the rebuilds all in one go, just let the docs trickle in...
> > > >
> > > > Opinions anyone?
> > >
> > > I was about to suggest the same thing.
> > Arch prefers manpages, there is no doubt there. We also prefer vanilla
> > packages, which could very well include packaging and installing
> > upstream documentation as the authors intended. I'm fine with keeping
> > docs around.
> Yeah, let me be fully clear here. The first email comes off as though
> I am saying "People are complaining, let us fix it". That is close to
> the truth but not exactly it.
> The doc thing always sat oddly with me. We prefer vanilla packages,
> but we remove some crap FROM these vanilla packages. That seems
> counter-intuitive to me. Vanilla packages are vanilla, not modified to
> suit some internal opinions. If we want to provide the fullest
> "framework" of a distro, we shouldn't rampantly remove stuff that some
> people may find useful in a base system
I was certainly resistant to the idea at first, as your original email
did sound like 'I am doing it because I got tired of hearing people
complain'. That isn't a good reason to me, as there will always be
people complaining about something.
However, since you provided a sound technical reason, and clarified
your position (thanks for that by the way), I have no problem with it.
More information about the arch-dev-public