On 9/29/05, Kazimieras Aliulis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > if so MANY people is whining, maybe something IS WRONG? And nobody asks > about "docs being part of a package", but about docs being a separate > package. I would like such doc packages, too. >
Who said it's something WRONG? It's something people dislike, which is a long way from being something wrong with it. It's something about the distro people dont like, just like I cant stand RPM on other distros, but do you really think the mandrake (new name sucks) people would like it if I told them to gut their operating system and put pacman in because I want them to? Removing documentation is *part* of the way Arch works, slimmer and more streamlined packages that arent overly customised. If you need the documentation so much, download it and save it to your computer yourself. What manpages dont cover on my computer, my ~/documentation/ directory does cover. If you know that you're going to be using the gimp on the train, download your documentation before hand. If you know you're going to be experimenting with some new python stuff, download the documentation for it. I know some stuff doesnt have documentation available quite so easily, but I havnt ever needed that documentation in my times. James > Kz. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > It has already been discussed at least two times in the past couple of > > years or so. And NOTHING has changed accept the names of the folks > > whining. > > > > Bottom line: Judd does not like docs being part of a package UNLESS they > > are help files required by a gui-based app., man pages, or not available > > anywhere else (including the web). > > _______________________________________________ > arch mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch > -- iphitus - archck maintainer Home:iphitus.loudas.com Blog: iphitus.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
