Travis Crump wrote: > Daniel Burrows wrote: >> On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 02:58:56PM -0700, Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> >> was heard to say: >>>> I think that lintian warning is the right way to do it. >>> I don't -- I think there are too many false positives for a lintian >>> warning given the thread. I also think this is fundamentally going in >>> the wrong direction. Wouldn't our users expect to get the >>> documentation >>> with many of these packages by default? Normally you do get some >>> documentation with things, and I've always been surprised by, say, ntp >>> not including any documentation without installing a separate package. >> >> I agree with this. I consider installing a program and *not* >> installing its documentation to be an unusual situation, and if this >> bug is filed I will treat it as a request to make my packages worse. >> >> aptitude-doc is split out to save archive space and as a feature for >> users who want to save a few megabytes by removing the user manual, not >> because I want to force users to jump through hoops to get documentation >> on their system. >> >> Daniel > > If the documentation is something designed to be viewed in a web browser > and the user has broadband, it is arguably easier to find it on the web.
If the documentation isn't accessible, that should be fixed. (aptidude's help menu has a link to the text-only version of the documentation, great). > Even knowing precisely where it is[/usr/share/doc/aptitude is it -doc > or just aptitude, oops I already found it online google aptitude doc > first result], it is still arguably faster to find it online and once > you bookmark it is virtually identical. The documentation published on the web isn't always the same as the version shipped by Stable. Franklin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
