On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 12:04:43PM +0000, A. S. Budden wrote: > 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
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 03:25:44PM +0200, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote: > 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 These replies are funny because I just commented on this in another email: http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch/2005-November/007211.html It's a lot more complicated than you think. Jason -- If you understand, things are just as they are. If you do not understand, things are just as they are.
pgpBS7pyC0rtv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
