Re: Bug#96224: libgmp3: Move documentation in the -dev package
>>>> "DS" == Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> writes:
[...]
DS> I can be convinced on either count. How would you feel about my presenting
DS> this issue to the "developers" at large, with you and I agreeing to follow
DS> the concensus of the group?
>>
>> Go ahead.
DS> At this point that seems a waste of time ... I've had a nights sleep on
DS> it, and I'm currently leaning toward the extreme solution.
So I forward this myself.
DS> Arguments:
DS> 1. It's been like this forever...
DS> 2. No one (with the exception of Christian) has ever asked that it be
DS> moved, and several requests have been made for additional documentation.
DS> 3. The documentation is development in nature, and should go into the -dev
DS> package.
DS> 4. The info, demos, and docs sections are about as large as the libraries
DS> themselves. Removing them from the runtime is a 50% savings.
5. You can't build demos source if the -dev package isn't installed.
6. Example files should be installed in /usr/lib/<package>/examples
According to the Debian Policy chapter 13.7
DS> Conclusion:
DS> While the principle of "least surprise" is important, it should not be
DS> used to stifle progress. Moving the docs and demos out of the runtime
DS> package is a significant "bloat" reduction. Moving them into -dev is not.
DS> Making a third package -doc, containing the info, doc, and demo sections
DS> now found in the runtime package makes the most sense. Thus a
DS> non-development system can still have complete documentation when needed
DS> without either the runtime or the -dev packages installed. (screw 'em if
DS> they can't find it ;-)
"My" conclusion:
You can't build demos source if the -dev package isn't installed. And the
info documentation is *really* for developper. This package contain
libraries, so an end user don't need to know how to program this library.
Christian
Reply to: