[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Documentation server security issues

On Jul 12, Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de> wrote:
> Please calm down and read the proposal again. First, nothing in the
> proposal is included "just to stop a discussion". Second, files are
> installed uncompressed only as default. All packages will support the new
> "doc-base" package which will compress all HTML files automatically (even
> without asking the user), if the local sysadmin has decided to do so.

My impression, while trying follow the umpteen different threads that
the discussion occurred on, was that at least one or more of the following is

1. I have to install uncompressed HTML pages, which are much bigger that
the existing info docs.

2. I have to have browsers that have been modified to support
converting x.html links to x.html.gz links on the fly, *and* to support
uncompressing those files on fly.

3. I have to install an http server that accomplishes #2.

4. I have to install a indexing database if I want to be able to have
reasonable search capabilities.

5. I'll have to download a separate package for each bin package to get
info docs, which IMO are much more useful than HTML stuff.

This whole issue seems like a huge amount of effort to avoid

      dpkg -L <package> |egrep 'doc|man|info'

which has never seemed like a big effort to me. HTML was a wonderful
thing for it's original intention (a standard text format for distributed
documents), but now it's been perverted into a "it's good for everything"
role for which it's not really suited. 

I realize that this is a lost cause, but I believe there are a lot of
us who think we're going to a big effort to end up with an inferior

Steve Greenland

The Mole - I think, therefore I scream 

			"Flattery is all right -- if you don't inhale."
[Adlai Stevenson]

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: