On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 11:36:22AM +0200, Daniel Bendel wrote: > Jason Chu wrote: > > >On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 12:16:24AM +0530, Vinay Shastry wrote: > > > > > >>I strongly support this.. a lot of ppl have this opinion on info pages > >>Docs supporters.. voice your opinion please > >> > >>On Apr 8, 2005 3:37 PM, J�rgen H�tzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Hi, > >>> > >>>i talked about this on IRC and i know from the FAQ's that > >>>"relatively useless portions of a linux system, things like /usr/doc and > >>>the info pages" are removed from the packages. > >>>Well i don't use /usr/share/doc. But the Info pages are part of an > >>>Emacs development environment. You never have to leave emacs all day. > >>>Using an emacs web browser is just PITA compared to info browsing. > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > >A lot of people have been asking about this over the years. If there's a > >way to keep info pages but nothing else, I'd entertain the idea (though > >realize that I don't ultimately make the decision). I do consider info > >pages similar to man pages, in that the information contained is really > >fairly important. > > > >I'd also want a patch for makepkg to actually support it. > > > > > I did it once. It's quite easy to do and my approach was also > configurable. I don't remember now what I did back then. But it's just > about a simple if before "rm -rk pkg/usr/info [...]".. I'll have to take > a closer look, but I'm not at home right now. > > You could set an environment variable in the config files or on the > command line: KEEP_INFO. It actually was quite convenient. > I've dropped the idea then since I always had to patch makepkg with new > versions. I hate this. :-) > > So personally I was thinking about making a "makeinfo" script, similar > to makepkg. It would create only the info files (no /usr/share/doc files > or man pages). I think this is better because: > > - you can provide separate packages in binary format, so you don't have > to compile everything (this is nice with the libc info pages *g*) > - it doesn't break current installations > - if someone just doesn't feel he wants info, then he just won't install > the package.info package > - it doesn't need makepkg patching > - it doesn't hurt the makepkg developers' ethical attitude towards info :-) > > I did not do any concrete approach, this just came into my mind. Maybe > I'll give it a shot when I'm back home. > > What do you think? Stats from my gentoo system: gz-compressed info pages: 10M gz-compressed man pages: 30M Total package sizes: 500M
It's just not worth the trouble you get when adding complexity to the build system. We are talking about 2% additional disk-space. (You could use bz2 to shrink it a little bit more). Info shouldn't be removed from packages. J�rgen _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
