FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-25-2008, 02:57 PM
Andreas Radke
 
Default info files / documentation

Am Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:43:28 -0500
schrieb "Dan McGee" <dpmcgee@gmail.com>:

> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:36 AM, Andreas Radke <a.radke@arcor.de>
> wrote:
> > -2 fixes unwanted info directory.
>
> Don't we want to keep the info/ dir, now that we had this discussion a
> few months back? As info is the primary mode of documentation for some
> of these GNU programs, it is probably helpful when people are getting
> their system up and running if they don't yet have a net connection.
>
> -Dan
>

I think there was no rule decided. Afair we wanted to let it up to the
maintainer if he wants to add info files and further documentation when
he thinks it's helpful. I don't use the info command at all but could
also live with enabling all documentation. We ship headers in every
case so why not all possible content upstream developers install by
default.

Maybe we should put a clear statement into the Arch packaging standards
wiki page.

-Andy
 
Old 08-26-2008, 05:21 AM
Eric Belanger
 
Default info files / documentation

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Andreas Radke wrote:


Am Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:43:28 -0500
schrieb "Dan McGee" <dpmcgee@gmail.com>:


On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:36 AM, Andreas Radke <a.radke@arcor.de>
wrote:

-2 fixes unwanted info directory.


Don't we want to keep the info/ dir, now that we had this discussion a
few months back? As info is the primary mode of documentation for some
of these GNU programs, it is probably helpful when people are getting
their system up and running if they don't yet have a net connection.

-Dan



I think there was no rule decided. Afair we wanted to let it up to the
maintainer if he wants to add info files and further documentation when
he thinks it's helpful. I don't use the info command at all but could
also live with enabling all documentation. We ship headers in every
case so why not all possible content upstream developers install by
default.

Maybe we should put a clear statement into the Arch packaging standards
wiki page.

-Andy



My understanding on this was that we include the info pages/docs. The only
exception was for the case when the documentation increase the package
size significantly like in the case of glib2. Then the maintainer can, at
his discretion, disable docs.


Eric

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
 
Old 08-26-2008, 08:25 AM
Xavier
 
Default info files / documentation

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Andreas Radke <a.radke@arcor.de> wrote:
>
> I think there was no rule decided. Afair we wanted to let it up to the
> maintainer if he wants to add info files and further documentation when
> he thinks it's helpful. I don't use the info command at all but could
> also live with enabling all documentation. We ship headers in every
> case so why not all possible content upstream developers install by
> default.
>
> Maybe we should put a clear statement into the Arch packaging standards
> wiki page.
>

The condition for letting it up to the maintainer was "if the docs are
too big for a given package".
http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2008-April/005913.html


A side-note about the future docs handling in makepkg 3.3 :

There was only one example of docs insanely big, and it was not info
docs, but gtk-docs :
http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2008-April/005923.html

Allan also recently found out that info docs were not compressed:
http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2008-August/012780.html
For fixing this, he decided to have man pages and info pages treated
exactly the same, which makes perfectly sense and is fully supported
by Dan and I.
So with makepkg 3.3, the info pages will always be included and compressed :
http://projects.archlinux.org/?p=pacman.git;a=commitdiff;h=7865fb9af487f7ca043ca b6e90c3aee0863e285b

The !docs option is still useful and needed for removing the really
big docs like gtk-docs in the glib2 package.
 
Old 08-26-2008, 11:17 PM
"Aaron Griffin"
 
Default info files / documentation

On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:21 AM, Eric Belanger
<belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Andreas Radke wrote:
>
>> Am Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:43:28 -0500
>> schrieb "Dan McGee" <dpmcgee@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:36 AM, Andreas Radke <a.radke@arcor.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> -2 fixes unwanted info directory.
>>>
>>> Don't we want to keep the info/ dir, now that we had this discussion a
>>> few months back? As info is the primary mode of documentation for some
>>> of these GNU programs, it is probably helpful when people are getting
>>> their system up and running if they don't yet have a net connection.
>>>
>>> -Dan
>>>
>>
>> I think there was no rule decided. Afair we wanted to let it up to the
>> maintainer if he wants to add info files and further documentation when
>> he thinks it's helpful. I don't use the info command at all but could
>> also live with enabling all documentation. We ship headers in every
>> case so why not all possible content upstream developers install by
>> default.
>>
>> Maybe we should put a clear statement into the Arch packaging standards
>> wiki page.
>>
>> -Andy
>>
>
> My understanding on this was that we include the info pages/docs. The only
> exception was for the case when the documentation increase the package size
> significantly like in the case of glib2. Then the maintainer can, at his
> discretion, disable docs.

Yeah, there was never a hard and fast rule here, but Eric has the
right of it. We want to include info pages for things that have shitty
docs normally, for one (grub is the good use case here - do a "man
grub" when you get a chance), but we also don't want superfluous info
files for no reason. glib2 is the perfect use-case for stripping docs,
but I think in most cases, they should be left in as the original
author of the software intended it.
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:56 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org