On 15/11/05, James Rayner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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? > > > > Well I tried to work out a happy middle ground, but it went unanswered. > > Most packages that include an info also include a basic man that works fine. > > For the handfull of packages that ONLY provide an info, why dont we > use info2man which I put in the AUR earlier to convert it at the > makepkg? > > Then we get no info pages, people get their man pages, and everyone is happy.
This doesn't, however, solve the problem with other documentation, something that having automatically generated $pkgname-doc packages would solve. The latter would be very simple to implement as well, just change the lines in makepkg that delete the documentation to commands that move it from the "pkg" directory to a "doc" directory and (assuming there are files that exist), make a second package. Al Al _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
