On 1/2/07, Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 04:28:59PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> > On 1/2/07, Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> wrote:
> > Why not have an extra /usr/share/doc/$source-name directory in case a
> > binary package of the same name doesn't exist or is not found to be
> > installed. This would be a problem when dependencies change, but on
> > package removal, /usr/share/doc/$source-name would be left alone if
> > there remains binary packages built from that source package.
>
> That's what $package-common packages are for. But just to hold the
> copyright and changelog that's an overkill because those packages would
> need some kind of garbage collection somehow and that i'm quite sure
> that it would use more mirror resources than the repeated changelogs.
>
> Well all in one it's not worth the effort, and has many drawbacks
> IMHO. I'd say that's a thing you may consider when you already need a
> $package-common for your packaging, but it's not necessarily a good
> idea.
>
> just to know what we are talking about, on my system:
>
> du /usr/share/doc/*/changelog.Debian.gz: 16M
> du /usr/share/doc/*/copyright: 15M
> du /usr/lib/iceweasel/firefox-bin: 15M
>
> so well, if it's not nothing, it's still quite small, and I can't
> imagine a system where 30M is an issue nowadays (well except PDA's or
> so, but here the whole /usr/share/doc is an issue at once anyway, like
> Don already explained it - on my system /usr/share/doc is 234M big).
Pretty well-justified that this would be a useless effort. Along with
Don's mention that binary packages don't have to be the same version
it just shows that my proposal sucks.
thanks