Re: Policy 12.3: should I rename?

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:09:36PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > ]] Sven Bartscher > > > 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. > > How do you keep up

Re: Policy 12.3: should I rename?

On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 23:09:36 +0200 Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > ]] Sven Bartscher > > > 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. "problem"

Re: Policy 12.3: should I rename?

]] Wookey > On 2016-07-23 18:58 +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

Re: Policy 12.3: should I rename?

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 5:09 AM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > How do you keep up with unstable or testing, then? pdiffs, debdelta and apt-offline help with that. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Re: Policy 12.3: should I rename?

On 2016-07-23 18:58 +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

Re: Policy 12.3: should I rename?

]] Sven Bartscher > 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. How do you keep up with unstable or testing, then? -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's

Re: Policy 12.3: should I rename?

On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 22:59:43 +0200 Tollef Fog Heen 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

Re: Policy 12.3: should I rename?

]] Tobias Frost > 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

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

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 >

Re: Policy 12.3: should I rename?

]] 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

Re: Policy 12.3: should I rename?

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

Re: Policy 12.3: should I rename?

]] 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

Re: Policy 12.3: should I rename?

On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 09:48:00AM +, Niels Thykier wrote: > Neil Williams: > > On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 23:04:51 +0300 > > Shachar Shemesh wrote: > > > >> Another question I have is regarding packaging. The Policy suggests > >> that libargtable2-doc should install the docs >

Re: Policy 12.3: should I rename?

* Shachar Shemesh , 2016-07-16, 23:04: The package currently ships the docs in a package calles "libargtable2-docs" (plural). I am wondering whether I should rename it, and how to do it. As far as I can tell, I have three options: 1. Don't rename. It's only a

Re: Policy 12.3: should I rename?

Neil Williams: > On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 23:04:51 +0300 > Shachar Shemesh wrote: > >> Another question I have is regarding packaging. The Policy suggests >> that libargtable2-doc should install the docs >> to /usr/share/doc/libargtable2. It seems that debhelper is not a >> friend

Re: Policy 12.3: should I rename?

On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 23:04:51 +0300 Shachar Shemesh wrote: > Another question I have is regarding packaging. The Policy suggests > that libargtable2-doc should install the docs > to /usr/share/doc/libargtable2. It seems that debhelper is not a > friend in that regard, pushing

Policy 12.3: should I rename?

I am working on bringing the libargtable2 package up to date with both upstream changes and the Debian policy. One of the changes state: recommend to ship additional documentation for package |pkg| in a separate package |pkg-doc| and install it into |/usr/share/doc/pkg|. The package currently