Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
Peter Eisentraut <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Saturday 09 May 2009 00:58:56 Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Wouldn't our users expect to get the documentation with many of these
>> packages by default? Normally you do get some documentation with
>> things, and I've always been surprised by, say, ntp not including any
>> documentation without installing a separate package.
> We currently have that ntp suggests ntp-doc. Should that be changed to
I don't know that I'm really the person to ask, since I'm kind of on the
inside and I don't have a very good feel for what the average user
expects. I find it slightly surprising that ntp-doc isn't recommended
by ntp, but on the other hand, I rarely use the documentation so it
probably saves me disk space.
> Perhaps a better policy or developer reference type guideline can come
> out of this thread about what kind of package should or should not
> depend on documentation in what way. It is kind of idiosyncratic that
> we insist on man pages being provided in a very specific way but are
> completely lax about other kinds of documentation, even if the latter
> might be the primary way to learn about a particular package's
Yeah, that's part of the thought that was going through my head as well.
It feels to me like recommending documentation is often the right thing
to do. Systems with space constraints can disable automatic
installation of recommends (we do routinely on all of our servers).
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>