Eugene Philippov wrote: > >>Therefore argueably, Arch is widespread because we DON'T have info files >>and therefore should not include them. > > NO!! Things I like in Arch are ABS, pacman and initscripts. And from the very > begining a hate an absence of docs.... There are different reasons why people > chooze Arch. That's why your logic is the flawed one.
I completely agree. > > hmm... I'm not completly right. I do appreciate small size of packages. Just > because I'm a dial-up user and I don't have fast 24/7 connection. (The other > things that "big archers" seems unable to understand...) But this is also the > reason why I can't get access to docs when I need them. So the real thing I > miss in Arch is ability to mantain docs in the same easy way I mantain > packages. I do not want too force all other people to download docs, do not > want too use rpm or brake other good things in Arch. I agree here too. --Not every computer has 24/7 internet connectivity. --Some people really like emacs --X is not running on some servers, and reading docs through lynx/links is not as convenient as info. As for the small package size, if it is that important we could create seperate packages with info documentation. What do you think? Dimitris _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
