[arch-dev-public] info files / documentation
aaronmgriffin at gmail.com
Tue Aug 26 19:17:51 EDT 2008
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:21 AM, Eric Belanger
<belanger at astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Andreas Radke wrote:
>> Am Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:43:28 -0500
>> schrieb "Dan McGee" <dpmcgee at gmail.com>:
>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:36 AM, Andreas Radke <a.radke at arcor.de>
>>>> -2 fixes unwanted info directory.
>>> Don't we want to keep the info/ dir, now that we had this discussion a
>>> few months back? As info is the primary mode of documentation for some
>>> of these GNU programs, it is probably helpful when people are getting
>>> their system up and running if they don't yet have a net connection.
>> I think there was no rule decided. Afair we wanted to let it up to the
>> maintainer if he wants to add info files and further documentation when
>> he thinks it's helpful. I don't use the info command at all but could
>> also live with enabling all documentation. We ship headers in every
>> case so why not all possible content upstream developers install by
>> Maybe we should put a clear statement into the Arch packaging standards
>> wiki page.
> My understanding on this was that we include the info pages/docs. The only
> exception was for the case when the documentation increase the package size
> significantly like in the case of glib2. Then the maintainer can, at his
> discretion, disable docs.
Yeah, there was never a hard and fast rule here, but Eric has the
right of it. We want to include info pages for things that have shitty
docs normally, for one (grub is the good use case here - do a "man
grub" when you get a chance), but we also don't want superfluous info
files for no reason. glib2 is the perfect use-case for stripping docs,
but I think in most cases, they should be left in as the original
author of the software intended it.
More information about the arch-dev-public