eliott wrote:
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.
I agree with the position. I like vanilla == upstream.
- P
