[arch-dev-public] OMG info pages
paul at mattal.com
Tue Apr 22 14:58:53 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.
I agree with the position. I like vanilla == upstream.
More information about the arch-dev-public