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

Re: gnupg-doc of standard priority?

On 15-Jul-2002 Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 08:26:13PM -0500, Scott Dier wrote:
>> > > using priorities to set up a useful system.
>> > Some peoples ideas of a 'useful system' don't include large amounts of
>> > extra documentation thats not needed for the functionality.
>> In which case they can uninstall the package. What's the fuss?
> The same argument ("they can uninstall the package") could be applied
> to TeX or emacs, but we agreed to make them optional because there was
> a consensus to keep the default system small. Adding a package with 2MB
> of installed-size to the set of standard packages is a step in the
> wrong direction.

Wow, Santiago having a position several of us ageee with. (-:

Indeed policy's definition of standard and of important above it and optional
below it imply that gnupg-doc really does not fit except perhaps as extra.

gnupg itself is not really a requirement for most users it is there more
because we developers need it for Debian itself.  However because of the crowd
likely to install Debian I can understand it being there.  The -doc however is
only likely to be read by the people who actually intend to use gnupg.  It
reall should be extra.  "imposing", "forcing", whatever the word used we are
asking someone to download 2 more megs in an already growing system.  How many
of them will ever read the doc much less try to use gnupg?  How many servers
out there will have gnupg-doc installed for no real reason?  simple home
workstations from users who decided to try linux out?

I won't question gnupg itself being standard because of security concerns but I
do not think anyone willing to use gnupg would be unable to apt-get install

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: