Re: Policy 12.3: should I rename?
On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 06:58:37PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Geert Stappers
> > FWIW I agree with both '"main package "should have documentation'
> > and 'additional documentation in separate doc package'.
> I think we should stop recommending documentation be put in a separate
> package and tell people who don't want docs to exclude the relevant
> parts of /usr/share/doc using dpkg excludes instead. Disk space is
> pretty cheap and we keep complaining about the per-package overhead in
> Packages.gz, so it should be a net gain for most people.
Disk space may not be the only reason to have a separate -doc package.
It may also allow to demote some build-dependencies to build-depends-indep.
Just think of packages that a need a lot of texlive-* packages just
to build some documentation. I have recently seen FTBFS on buildds
because texlive-* and/or graphviz was unavailable on some architectures.
Being able to move these out of build-depends resolved the problem.