On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 15:25:10 +0200
Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote:

> What are your comments?

I think there's a situation not covered by this prose which is in a bit
of a grey area as per the intentions behind it, (but I would argue is
otherwise fine).

Some systems ship multiple types of documentation, and some, simply
having the package installed means the documentation is available as
the documentation is part of the installed sources.

In the perl ecosystem, if one wants to read documentation for the
installed module "Foo", one only needs to do `perldoc Foo`.

The perl *installer* toolchain however *also* generates manpages with
the extension ".3pm", which we currently *universally* strip, because
they're surplus to requirements, and most users don't expect to use
`man` to read their perl module documentation.

( Perldoc incidentally converts POD to groff on the fly and so its
pretty much identical )

We have exemptions for shipping man-pages for executables, as they
don't get the '.3pm' extension, and they make sense, because then, "I
have /usr/bin/foo, man foo will tell me about it" as an assumption
works fine.

I don't think any of this is "a problem" as such for us, just
suspecting there are other similar cases out there not covered by the
letter of the policy.

In short, the policy suggests that our blanket removal of man pages
is harmful, even though it really isn't the case. ( That is, man pages
for this system are not primary documentation, merely secondary )

That said, we never plan on gating this removal behind a USE flag, it
would create an *impossible* amount of work.

Attachment: pgp6tznTt_K0X.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to