James Rayner 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? >
I read your first post about info2man, however I think that info documentation has its advantages (and disadvantages) over man. I like using man as a quick reference, for example man pages of coreutils are short and enough for quick reference. But info documentation (look at emacs, bash, tar) is much bigger and would be unusable in a single page. If we convert them to man we lose the advantages of both info and man, in my opinion. I think the cleanest solution would be creating seperate packages with info docs. Only when someone has enabled a specific flag in pacman conf file those would be automatically downloaded. Dimitris _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
