Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
Travis Crump wrote:
> Daniel Burrows wrote:
>> On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 02:58:56PM -0700, Russ Allbery <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> 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
>>> 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.
If the documentation isn't accessible, that should be fixed. (aptidude's
help menu has a link to the text-only version of the documentation,
> 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.
The documentation published on the web isn't always the same as the version
shipped by Stable.