I think this is a good idea. Having seperate info packages would be
nice. We could just name them 'info-foobar.pkg.tar.gz', like how the
perl modules are named currently. Of course, it would be useful probably
only for devs or packagers or something (I think). I know I don't have a
need for info. It never hurt to have an option.
Ravster.
Daniel Bendel wrote:
...(snipped)...
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?
Cheers,
Daniel
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________
arch mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
