Better cover some cases rather than none where possible, eh? James Rayner wrote:
>On 11/16/05, Ken Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 03:25:44PM +0200, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote: >> >> >>>I think the cleanest solution would be creating seperate packages with >>>info docs. Only when someone has enabled a specific flag in pacman conf >>>file those would be automatically downloaded. >>> >>>Dimitris >>> >>> >>I like this solution. :-) >> >>Ken >> >> > >Read a few posts up, it's impractical. It will require changes to the >developers scripts, the AUR and practically everything that deals with >PKGBUILDS because the doco packages wont have one. > >As for info2man, I think the manpages generated, although long, would >be fine. There is a search function in man, its not difficult to use >either. It's also somewhat more feasable and Arch friendly than >different packages. I realise it doesnt cover certain packages which >dont use either man or info docos, but thats not what this thread was >started about. > >James >-- >iphitus - archck maintainer >Home:iphitus.loudas.com Blog: iphitus.blogspot.com > >_______________________________________________ >arch mailing list >arch@archlinux.org >http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch > > > > _______________________________________________ arch mailing list arch@archlinux.org http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
