Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 02:58:56PM -0700, Russ Allbery <email@example.com> was heard to say:
>>> I think that lintian warning is the right way to do it.
>> I don't -- I think there are too many false positives for a lintian
>> warning given the thread. I also think this is fundamentally going in
>> the wrong direction. 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.
> I agree with this. I consider installing a program and *not*
> installing its documentation to be an unusual situation, and if this
> bug is filed I will treat it as a request to make my packages worse.
> aptitude-doc is split out to save archive space and as a feature for
> users who want to save a few megabytes by removing the user manual, not
> because I want to force users to jump through hoops to get documentation
> on their system.
If the documentation is something designed to be viewed in a web browser
and the user has broadband, it is arguably easier to find it on the web.
Even knowing precisely where it is[/usr/share/doc/aptitude is it -doc
or just aptitude, oops I already found it online google aptitude doc
first result], it is still arguably faster to find it online and once
you bookmark it is virtually identical.