On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:07:16 -0500 (EST)
(Note: which is more than 6 hours after Aaron and I agreed on stopping
this and continued the discussion in a much more proper way, one
may wonder what the point of this post is...)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In point of fact the people making these requests wanted docs to be
> included as part of a binary package as distributed by the arch repos.
> (Albeit they might not have said so as succinctly as that.)
>
> As such, it was a request for someone else (dev and tus) to do
> something to please somebody(s) desires. As such that may be o.k.,
> but in this case it involved much more that you are not considering.
>
> And the beef from where I sit is that the "request" was against Arch
> policy. Until I mentioned it as such; this point was not being
> discussed as part of the issue these request would involve. i.e It is
> hardly a simple request when it amounts to a reversal of the
> doctrines this distro was founded on.
I'd once again like to point out that I didn't ask for docs. This thread
was never supposed to be about docs. That was just something somebody
commented that he'd like. Please read the original post to understand
what requests Aaron and I are discussing. Or don't comment on it.
> ALSO these requests to the devs and tus to recompile their packages to
> include docs, (and by default also requires they look into docs issues
> they have otherwise NOT had to look at), *does* require more workload
> for the devs and tus. This is not necessarily a trivial amount of
> additional care in packaging either.
I don't think this is what people are asking for. What I would like to
see (but haven't asked for) is simply if makepkg by default did _not_
delete doc directories in the pkg dir after building packages.
This rarely requires anything from the packager, and if it does, of
course he's allowed to parse --without-docs to configure, remove the
doc directories during build() or whatever.
Anyway as stated earlier this issue sure isn't on my top 3.
> Finally, you guys making requests NEED to make them with the
> recognition of both the distros' aims and rules in account, or at
> least be friendly to them when pointed out.
I fail to see where any of the requests in the original post conflicts
with Arch project goals.
> Perhaps this is why many of the devs have chosen to ignore this
> thread. Perhaps those of you who are behaving this way should take a
> few moments and show some more character development.
Sometimes I forget to take a break between reading an offending mail and
replying to it. I think most of us do that at times. I'm sorry about
that, just like I told Aaron.
The Sorry Guy
_______________________________________________
arch mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
