Re: Policy 12.3: should I rename?
On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 22:59:43 +0200
Tollef Fog Heen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> ]] 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 am a developer and regardless of the distribution I use, I often have
a slow internet connection. So having to download possibly large
documentation is a problem for me.