Dear Mr. Unsigned; You are right. I am pathtic (sic). My wife reminds me of that often. Are you married ? If so, you would understand that ALL men are pathtic (sic).
As for being a pathtic (sic) trusted user. I will leave that to the other tu's to decide. (Hint: you are probably right.) As for my name. You have that mis-speeled also. Very best regards; Bob Finch > Mr. Fink I think I have some advice for you leave the mailing lists! You > complain about all the mailing being to long, etc... etc.... I think its > great that there is a good discussion if one of the trusted users judd > think it to long or they don't like it they would say so. As far as I > know your not a trusted users and if you are your pathtic trusted user. > > On 9/29/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Hey gang; >> >> O.K.....this discussion has gone on long enough IMnsHO. >> >> And it was redundant BEFORE it got started last week or so. >> >> How so you may choose to ask ? >> >> 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). >> >> This is also VERY old news for arch, going back to its' inception. It >> remains a hard and fast declaration of how this distro will work. >> >> >> Have a nice day. And very best regards; >> >> Bob Finch >> >> >> > A) Regarding documentation: >> > Hey.. why not try this: >> > >> > 1) alter makepkg to create a second <pkgname>-docs package if there >> are any docs [includes /usr/share/doc and info pages (i badly need >> these for a lot of programs when offline)] >> > >> > 2) create a separate "docs" repository which has just these document >> packages (these packages have no dependencies on anything, so no >> hastle maintaining them) >> > >> > 3) The transition to these stuff can go on slowly.. meaning start >> off now, so that all future packages will have docs, dont worry >> about older packages until a rebuild is necessary for some other >> purpose. >> > >> > Thus we can endup with an elegant solution pleasing ppl who want >> documentation(*shouts me me me!*) and ppl who dont care about docs. >> > >> > (disclaimer: i dunno if anyone has suggested this.. but i just got >> this as a brainwave this morning :D ) >> > >> > >> > B) Regarding pacman normal features, i request some option to allow >> "automatic downgrading" as i had explained in one of my previous >> threads. >> > >> > >> > Best Regards to the arch team. >> > >> > -- >> > Vinay S Shastry >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> arch mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch >> > > > > -- > Matthew G. > Website http://msg43.homeip.net > AIM: msg431 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GTalk: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
