Re: Removing manpages from libpam-modules to improve multi-arch

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Simon" == Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> writes:

    Simon> On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 at 09:41:51 -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
    >> (We'd also need to do something about libpam0g-dev man pages).

    Simon> Moving user-facing documentation from libpam0g into either
    Simon> libpam-modules-bin or libpam-doc (depending how often you
    Simon> expect users to need it), and developer documentation from
    Simon> libpam0g-dev into libpam-doc, seems like it would make sense
    Simon> to me?

I got enough requests from people who  want the sysadmin-facing
documentation installed by default (including a mild preference from
Helmut who I generally align with on issues like this).

I got a request from Helmut to minimize build dependencies.

With the exception of Simon Richter, we appear to be agreed that
avoiding man pages in m-a: same packages is good.

So what I'm going to do is move the developer man pages into libpam-doc
and the sysadmin man pages into libpam-runtime.
I'll be open to requests from people who want to minimize essential set
to move the sysadmin man pages to libpam-doc, but so far I'm not seeing
that.

I think this means:

* build-arch will not need the doc tools

* nodoc alone isn't enough to avoid the doc tools because of
  libpam-runtime

* bootstrapping can reuse libpam-runtime so  pam at least won't bring
  the xml docbook stack into bootstrapping essential.

* I will recommend libpam-doc from libpam0g-dev