Mark and the gang; I hope a third try to explain things to you might help. In that vein I will try a last time.
If you do not agree, that is o.k, but you have now (with this email) been told three times, by me, why docs are to be handled the way they have been handled for several years now. Others devs and tus have piped in about how they agree with me. So please keep that in mind. > On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:07:16 -0500 (EST) > (Note: which is more than 6 hours after Aaron and I agreed on stopping > this and continued the discussion in a much more proper way, one > may wonder what the point of this post is...) Email can be, and often is: asynchronous. As such, my reply coming out of order should not offend you. Get over it. It is "the way of email", so to speak. > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> In point of fact the people making these requests wanted docs to be >> included as part of a binary package as distributed by the arch repos. >> (Albeit they might not have said so as succinctly as that.) >> >> As such, it was a request for someone else (dev and tus) to do >> something to please somebody(s) desires. As such that may be o.k., but >> in this case it involved much more that you are not considering. >> >> And the beef from where I sit is that the "request" was against Arch >> policy. Until I mentioned it as such; this point was not being >> discussed as part of the issue these request would involve. i.e It is >> hardly a simple request when it amounts to a reversal of the >> doctrines this distro was founded on. > > I'd once again like to point out that I didn't ask for docs. This thread > was never supposed to be about docs. That was just something somebody > commented that he'd like. Please read the original post to understand > what requests Aaron and I are discussing. Or don't comment on it. You did or did not speak to the docs issue ? Below you say you did. Above you say you did not. No wonder I am confused. > >> ALSO these requests to the devs and tus to recompile their packages to >> include docs, (and by default also requires they look into docs issues >> they have otherwise NOT had to look at), *does* require more workload >> for the devs and tus. This is not necessarily a trivial amount of >> additional care in packaging either. > > I don't think this is what people are asking for. What I would like to > see (but haven't asked for) is simply if makepkg by default did _not_ > delete doc directories in the pkg dir after building packages. Well that is the same as asking for docs to be included in the binaries. > > This rarely requires anything from the packager, and if it does, of > course he's allowed to parse --without-docs to configure, remove the doc > directories during build() or whatever. Sigh... > > Anyway as stated earlier this issue sure isn't on my top 3. > >> Finally, you guys making requests NEED to make them with the >> recognition of both the distros' aims and rules in account, or at >> least be friendly to them when pointed out. > > I fail to see where any of the requests in the original post conflicts > with Arch project goals. Well I have explained why twice before. That should have been enough. > >> Perhaps this is why many of the devs have chosen to ignore this >> thread. Perhaps those of you who are behaving this way should take a >> few moments and show some more character development. > > Sometimes I forget to take a break between reading an offending mail and > replying to it. I think most of us do that at times. I'm sorry about > that, just like I told Aaron. > > > The Sorry Guy No need to be sorry unless you fully understand what I have tried to tell you. Go back and re-read my earlier posts about how adding in docs is against THIS distros rules since day one. Very best regards; Bob Finch _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
