On 09/05/07 17:55 +0530, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag said ...
I filed a lintian wishlist bug (#527363) requesting a I/W tag when non
documentation packages recommend documentation packages.
With Install-Recommends being the default, many packages pull in a lot of
associated documentation. These
I demand that Travis Crump may or may not have written...
[snip]
Popcon suggests only 8% of users are on dial-up [based on package ppp and
'votes']
Use of ppp does not imply use of dial-up.
--
| Darren Salt | linux at youmustbejoking | nr. Ashington, | Toon
| Debian GNU/Linux | or ds
Travis Crump wrote:
Daniel Burrows wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 02:58:56PM -0700, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org
was heard to say:
I think that lintian warning is the right way to do it.
I don't -- I think there are too many false positives for a lintian
warning given the thread. I also
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote:
Hi debian-devel,
From policy 7.2 Binary Dependencies - Depends, Recommends, Suggests, Enhances,
Pre-Depends
Recommends
This declares a strong, but not absolute, dependency.
The Recommends field should list packages that would be found together
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 07:00:25PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 09:47:56PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
As a practical matter, downgrading these dependencies will cause
aptitude and other package managers to believe that the documentation
is unnecessary and
On Saturday 09 May 2009 00:58:56 Russ Allbery wrote:
Wouldn't our users expect to get the documentation
with many of these packages by default? Normally you do get some
documentation with things, and I've always been surprised by, say, ntp
not including any documentation without installing a
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 06:49:38PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org
was heard to say:
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 09:47:56PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
As a practical matter, downgrading these dependencies will cause
aptitude and other package managers to believe that the
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 02:58:56PM -0700, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org was
heard to say:
I think that lintian warning is the right way to do it.
I don't -- I think there are too many false positives for a lintian
warning given the thread. I also think this is fundamentally going in
the
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 06:55:43PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org
was heard to say:
I don't think that the mere fact that we changed the default behavior
of apt-get/aptitude should get in the way of that maintainer's
choice. If we used to live in a world where, by maintainer choice,
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:39:21AM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 06:55:43PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli
z...@debian.org was heard to say:
I don't think that the mere fact that we changed the default behavior
of apt-get/aptitude should get in the way of that maintainer's
Peter Eisentraut pet...@debian.org writes:
On Saturday 09 May 2009 00:58:56 Russ Allbery wrote:
Wouldn't our users expect to get the documentation with many of these
packages by default? Normally you do get some documentation with
things, and I've always been surprised by, say, ntp not
Daniel Burrows wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 02:58:56PM -0700, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org was
heard to say:
I think that lintian warning is the right way to do it.
I don't -- I think there are too many false positives for a lintian
warning given the thread. I also think this is
Roger Lynn ro...@rilynn.demon.co.uk writes:
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 07:00:25PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 09:47:56PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
As a practical matter, downgrading these dependencies will cause
aptitude and other package managers to believe
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 06:14:34PM -0400, Travis Crump wrote:
If the documentation is something designed to be viewed in a web browser
and the user has broadband, it is arguably easier to find it on the web.
Even knowing precisely where it is[/usr/share/doc/aptitude is it -doc
or just
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 06:14:34PM -0400, Travis Crump wrote:
If the documentation is something designed to be viewed in a web browser
and the user has broadband, it is arguably easier to find it on the web.
Even knowing precisely where it
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 06:14:34PM -0400, Travis Crump wrote:
If the documentation is something designed to be viewed in a web browser
and the user has broadband, it is arguably easier to find it on the web.
Even knowing precisely where it
On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 11:31:05AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Wouldn't this MBF shake out which packages actually have good reason for
a strong (i.e. pulled-in-by-default-package-tool-behaviour) dependency
relationship to their docs from those that do not?
At the expense of the time of
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 11:31:05AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
That seems like a good reason to go through this exercise.
No. Figure out which packages actually should be changed, *then* file
bugs.
By “this exercise” I'm referring to the discussion
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote:
I filed a lintian wishlist bug (#527363) requesting a I/W tag when non
documentation packages recommend documentation packages.
(...)
Would there be any objections to filing minor/wishlist bugs against these
packages? I am including a tentative dd-list
On Fri, 8 May 2009, Christian Perrier wrote:
I bringed the discussion in out maintenance list but dropping
Recommends to Suggests is likely to make us provide a broken home page
for SWAT by default. We could of course patch SWAT so that the page
explicitely says that adding samba-doc is needed
On Fri, 8 May 2009 08:58:51 +0200 (CEST)
Andreas Tille til...@rki.de wrote:
On Fri, 8 May 2009, Christian Perrier wrote:
I bringed the discussion in out maintenance list but dropping
Recommends to Suggests is likely to make us provide a broken home page
for SWAT by default. We could of
On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 17:55 +0530, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote:
I filed a lintian wishlist bug (#527363) requesting a I/W tag when non
documentation packages recommend documentation packages.
While I support the effort to reduce disk space usage, I strongly
disagree with this proposal.
A
Frank Lin PIAT fp...@klabs.be wrote:
The development documentation for libraries and programming languages
should not be installed by the runtime.
This probably means that packages like perl, python, texlive... should
provide a $foo, $foo-doc and $foo-runtime (or -bin, or lib$foo, or
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 08:58:51AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Fri, 8 May 2009, Christian Perrier wrote:
I bringed the discussion in out maintenance list but dropping
Recommends to Suggests is likely to make us provide a broken home page
for SWAT by default. We could of course patch SWAT
On Fri, 08 May 2009 11:59:27 +0200
Frank Küster fr...@debian.org wrote:
Frank Lin PIAT fp...@klabs.be wrote:
The development documentation for libraries and programming languages
should not be installed by the runtime.
This probably means that packages like perl, python, texlive...
On Fr, 08 Mai 2009, Neil Williams wrote:
TeX docs should only be installed on systems where users need to write
TeX - any dependencies that bring in TeX docs merely to support
Come on. That we do NOT install the docs by default is already a
concession. We could stop this discussion and I kill
Zitat von Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org:
I rarely write TeX but I write a lot of docbook and expect to be able
to convert that to PDF when necessary - without needing to care about
how that happens or how to write TeX myself.
Well, you might as well use the FO output and use fop to convert
Daniel Burrows dburr...@debian.org (07/05/2009):
As a practical matter, downgrading these dependencies will cause
aptitude and other package managers to believe that the documentation
is unnecessary and suggest removing it.
So that one has a chance to notice possibly unneeded doc? Works for
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 04:06:47PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Daniel Burrows dburr...@debian.org (07/05/2009):
As a practical matter, downgrading these dependencies will cause
aptitude and other package managers to believe that the documentation
is unnecessary and suggest removing it.
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 09:47:56PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
As a practical matter, downgrading these dependencies will cause
aptitude and other package managers to believe that the documentation
is unnecessary and suggest removing it.
Even if the user marked as non-automatic the involved
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 10:14:05AM +0200, Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
While I support the effort to reduce disk space usage, I strongly
disagree with this proposal.
A software is worth nothing without appropriate documentation.
No, that's subjective, with the subject being the package
maintainer.
Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 17:55 +0530, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag a écrit :
Debian GNOME Maintainers pkg-gnome-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org
devhelp (U)
False positive. A documentation browser is useless without documentation
to browse.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “I
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 06:55:43PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 10:14:05AM +0200, Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
While I support the effort to reduce disk space usage, I strongly
disagree with this proposal.
A software is worth nothing without appropriate documentation.
On Thu, 07 May 2009, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote:
From policy 7.2 Binary Dependencies - Depends, Recommends, Suggests, Enhances,
Pre-Depends
Recommends
This declares a strong, but not absolute, dependency.
The Recommends field should list packages that would be found together
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org wrote:
On Fri, 08 May 2009 11:59:27 +0200
Frank Küster fr...@debian.org wrote:
Frank Lin PIAT fp...@klabs.be wrote:
The development documentation for libraries and programming languages
should not be installed by the runtime.
This probably means
Giacomo Catenazzi c...@debian.org writes:
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote:
Would there be any objections to filing minor/wishlist bugs against
these packages? I am including a tentative dd-list corresponding to
the packages [1] that I found after manually removing some packages
[2]. I will
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org writes:
In which case, the MBF could concentrate more on libraries and other
packages that have -doc packages rather than on
applications. Libraries that Recommend: libfoo-doc (as mine did and
which I'll fix in the next upload) could conceivably be bringing
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
Yes, and the MBF proposal *doesn't* take into account packages that
previously *did* have a hard dep on their doc packages and only
demoted it to a Recommends: once the default behavior changed.
Cf. swat, samba-doc.
Wouldn't this MBF shake out
Hi debian-devel,
From policy 7.2 Binary Dependencies - Depends, Recommends, Suggests, Enhances,
Pre-Depends
Recommends
This declares a strong, but not absolute, dependency.
The Recommends field should list packages that would be found together
with this one in all but unusual
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag app...@debian.org wrote:
I filed a lintian wishlist bug (#527363) requesting a I/W tag when non
documentation packages recommend documentation packages.
That might be a good idea. However, for the texlive packages, we'll just
add lintian overrides.
With
On Thu, 7 May 2009 17:55:44 +0530
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag app...@debian.org wrote:
Would there be any objections to filing minor/wishlist bugs against these
packages? I am including a tentative dd-list corresponding to the packages
[1] that I found after manually removing some packages [2]. I
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag ha scritto:
Would there be any objections to filing minor/wishlist bugs against these
packages? I am including a tentative dd-list corresponding to the packages
[1] that I found after manually removing some packages [2]. I will modify it
based on suggestions.
Luca
As a practical matter, downgrading these dependencies will cause
aptitude and other package managers to believe that the documentation
is unnecessary and suggest removing it.
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
Quoting Y Giridhar Appaji Nag (app...@debian.org):
Debian Samba Maintainers pkg-samba-ma...@lists.alioth.debian.org
samba
swat Recommends: samba-doc
swat is a web interface to administer samba. Its main page currently
has links to Samba documentation in HTML.
I bringed the discussion in
44 matches
Mail list logo
