[arch-dev-public] OMG info pages

[Paul Mattal]

eliott wrote:
> 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.

- P