To summarize this discussion so far: I think everyone here agrees that we
should provide HTML and INFO.
So we currently have three options, both having their advantages and
(Arguments with `(-)' will become obsolete when deity is available, see
Option 1: Put HTML and GNU info manuals into seperate packages (if they
require more disk space than 100k, together).
- Great flexibility for the users. They can skip doc at all, or
just install info or HTML, or both.
- No waste of bandwidth for downloading docs one does not need.
- A little more work for the maintainers.
(-) A few more packages in the archive (see below) and thus a little
bit confusing for newbies (until deity becomes available).
Option 2: Put HTML and GNU info manuals into one package.
- Not much additional work for maintainers.
- Only few new packages (see below).
(-) Waste of disk space: everyone has to install both formats.
- Waste of bandwith: you have to download both formats all the
Option 3: We ship .texi files and produce HTML and/or info files on
demand (in the postinst script).
- No work for the maintainers.
- Great flexibility (the sysadmin could even produce PostScript
files when needed!).
- No new packages necessary, no additional space in the Debian
archive will be needed.
- Everyone needs "makeindex" and "texi2html" installed. (We could
package these up in a "debian-doc-base" package.)
- Installation process will get slower (especially on 386
Note, that ``deity,'' which is expected for Debian 2.0, will change this
scenario a bit:
disadvantage of too many packages will disappear, since deity will
be capable of handling more packages with confusing the sysadmin
disadvantage of "wasted disk size" will disappear, since deity will
allow the local sysadmin not to install files that match certain
patterns, for example /usr/info/*
I'm sure deity will be available for 2.0 and we should definitely take
this into account for our decision now. I think we could live with both
disadvantages for a few months very well until deity is available.
My prediction is that while a few people will like option 3) very much, it
will be unacceptable by a few others. (People usually don't want to
compile docs when installing a firewall :-)
So I think we have to look for a consensus in options 1) and 2).
I just wrote a little perl script that checks all packages in "hamm/main"
about how much disk space is required for /usr/info/*, alltogether. The
result is: 12814 kbytes. (This is actually so low, that we should stop
this silly discussion immediately ;-)
Because of this, I propose:
- The packages that carry the info documentation should also carry the
- If all docs in a package exceed a limit (say 1mb), it has to go in a
seperate package. (This is current policy anyways. We'd just have to
specify the limit.)
(BTW, I'm assuming that *.info.gz requires the same amount of disk space
as *.html.gz. I'm sure we find a way to use .html.gz files somehow.)
Any comments are welcome,
-- Christian Schwarz
Debian is looking email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
for a logo! Have a
look at our drafts PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .