>>>> "DS" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...] DS> I can be convinced on either count. How would you feel about my presenting DS> this issue to the "developers" at large, with you and I agreeing to follow DS> the concensus of the group? >> >> Go ahead. DS> At this point that seems a waste of time ... I've had a nights sleep on DS> it, and I'm currently leaning toward the extreme solution. So I forward this myself. DS> Arguments: DS> 1. It's been like this forever... DS> 2. No one (with the exception of Christian) has ever asked that it be DS> moved, and several requests have been made for additional documentation. DS> 3. The documentation is development in nature, and should go into the -dev DS> package. DS> 4. The info, demos, and docs sections are about as large as the libraries DS> themselves. Removing them from the runtime is a 50% savings. 5. You can't build demos source if the -dev package isn't installed. 6. Example files should be installed in /usr/lib/<package>/examples According to the Debian Policy chapter 13.7 DS> Conclusion: DS> While the principle of "least surprise" is important, it should not be DS> used to stifle progress. Moving the docs and demos out of the runtime DS> package is a significant "bloat" reduction. Moving them into -dev is not. DS> Making a third package -doc, containing the info, doc, and demo sections DS> now found in the runtime package makes the most sense. Thus a DS> non-development system can still have complete documentation when needed DS> without either the runtime or the -dev packages installed. (screw 'em if DS> they can't find it ;-) "My" conclusion: You can't build demos source if the -dev package isn't installed. And the info documentation is *really* for developper. This package contain libraries, so an end user don't need to know how to program this library. Christian