On 4/22/08, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Travis Willard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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.
