Re: Policy 12.3: should I rename?
Am Samstag, den 23.07.2016, 22:59 +0200 schrieb Tollef Fog Heen:
> ]] Jonas Smedegaard
>
> > Quoting Tollef Fog Heen (2016-07-23 18:58:37)
> > > ]] 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.
> >
> > If I understand you correctly, it will be a loss for those where
> > bandwidth is expensive: Stripping documentation during install
> > implied
> > it need to be downloaded.
>
> Sure, but at the same time: docs tend to compress well, and people
> who
> do development are more likely to run something up-to-date (like
> testing
> or unstable) and so therefore are more likely to be able to handle
> the
> bandwidth cost.
>
I think Jonas concerns about are more about our users; addtionally
they might not have a decent broadband connection, so forceing them to
download docs they don't need costs them time and money.
Increases needed traffic could be also a concern for our mirror
operators, even proably only a minor one.
Am Samstag, den 23.07.2016, 18:58 +0200 schrieb Tollef Fog Heen:
> 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.
Think embedded devices. For those disk space is not cheap, maybe even
not expandable at all.
--
tobi
Reply to: