On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:40:07 +0200, Eugene Philippov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
� ��������� �� 28 �������� 2005 22:26 A. S. Budden �������(a):
I don't want to go
the gentoo way and recompile my whole system (especially not when all
I want is a few 'fine manuals'), and this is the only thing that
(REALLY) bugs me with Arch Linux
Me too.
Me vote for
5. Change makepkg to automatically make two packages -- one with the
program and one with the documentation; add a pacman.conf option to
automatically install the documentation when installing a package
Please. :)
---
E.F.
Hi big Archies ;)
I'm still pretty new to Arch. Hehe and reading a bunch of messages of this
list every week, only makes it clear that I'm actually too much noob to
take part on "What new functions you'd like pacman gives us ?" discussion
;)
A. S. Budden, Mark and Eugene claims to have <package>-doc "pacmanable" do
make some sense.
I would have added my "me vote for", if for some silly reason man's pages
were removed from AL packages.
But hey! they are.
And beyond man's page, IMHO one never has enough documentation. Let say,
who's gonna build something with PHP, Zope/Plone, Gimp or whatever
application without his favorites bookmarks / buddies / book / notes /
scripts or downloaded documentation ?
Me not.
Therewhile i feel that if Arch's way is *slim-fast distro*, I'll take it
as it is :) & bring my own ~/documentation up-to-date when I leave home
sweat home for some place without Internet.
Anyway for those of us who live in super-urbanized places, we won't have
to wait decades before there's Internet available the same way we've got
GSM available. Unbelievable ? Then just have a stay in Tokyo, or in most
of the world main airports (I'd say TGV trains are the next step here in
France).
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 15:34:53 +0200, Tobias Powalowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I realize that, and this certainly is not a large problem for anybody.
It was just that insisting on removing documentation from packages to
get "slimmer and more streamlined packages that arent overly
customised" doesn't match very well with adding (sorry) ugly artwork to
packages.
As stated before adding artwork to DE's is packager freedom, if you
don't like
the packages as they are, use abs and compile your own "real" clean kde
for
example.
Artwork is a matter of taste and i don't have the feeling that the
majority
thinks it looks bad, thats the reason for the artwork in KDE.
greetings
tpowa
+ 1 ! AL artwork in KDE looks pretty fine to me.
I don't use it personnaly, but am installing it on 6 computers.
--
Best Regards to the arch team.
--
kozaki.dev
[~] > Arch, Mandrake & Ubuntu Linux
-------
\ ^__^
\ (oo)\_______
(__)\ )\/\
||----w |
|| ||
Et puis Linux, c'est bien sympa, mais la personne qui pleure quand ce
qu'il faut faire est plus compliqué que double cliquer sur une icone, elle
fait comment ?
Linux 2.6.12-ARCH #1 SMP Fri Jul 1 11:55:48 PDT 2005 i686 Pentium II
(Deschutes) GenuineIntel GNU/Linux ~ gcc-3.4.3 ~ Arch Linux Wombat
Linux 2.6.12-12mdk #1 Fri Sep 9 18:15:22 CEST 2005 i686 AMD Athlon(tm) XP
2000+ unknown GNU/Linux ~ gcc-4.0.1 ~ Mandrivalinux 2006
_______________________________________________
arch mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
