Re: conventions for packaging (ie: docs)
On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Adam P. Harris wrote:
> [You (Bill Leach)]
> >Has the idea been discussed about seperating out more of the
> >documentation packages from the executable packages?
> >It has seemed to me that it would be a great benefit to many sysadms if
> >most packages like smail, sendmail, qmail, apache, etc. had their
> >documentation in seperate packages that were suggested by the executable
> >and installable independently. Optionally dpkg/dselect (diety?) could
> >be changed to intentionally do partial package installations.
> OTOH, more packages means more packages, which makes for more stuff to be
> managed (i.e., package updates).
> Personally, I don't think doc packages should be separate unless they are
> huge! I.e., over 1MB. Maybe when a decent "grouping" system or better
> interface comes out, I'll change my tune. I.e., deity.
> Mind you, I think splitting docs is generally a good idea, i.e., for
> stripped down routers or for having doco for stuff which isn't installed
> locally. It's just going to cause problems for package management.
I think that it would be good for dpkg to have two options like --no-docs
and --docs-only that would install anything but the docs or only the docs,
respectively. 'Docs' would be anything under /usr/doc and perhaps also any
Has this discussion taken place before? Was there a consensus? Should I
start this discussion (again) on debian-devel or not?