2012/4/11 Olav Vitters <[email protected]>: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 01:47:51PM +0200, Wolfgang Bornath wrote: >> 2012/4/11 Olav Vitters <[email protected]>: >> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 06:17:32AM -0400, Renaud (Ron) Olgiati wrote: >> >> On Wednesday 11 Apr 2012 05:35 my mailbox was graced by a message from >> >> Olav >> >> Vitters who wrote: >> >> > I don't see how excluding documentation makes things more practical. >> >> >> >> As in "more practical to have diskspace available for data, than have it >> >> used >> >> up by documentation I will not need" ? >> > >> > You're speaking about yourself. I am speaking in general. How is it more >> > practical that the documentation is not available? You raise disk space. >> > I see that as a benefit if you have a small amount of disk space. But I >> > don't see how that makes not including documentation practical. Might be >> > practical to have the installer automatically detect a small amount of >> > disk space and exclude documentation. But in general not having any >> > documentation available is not practical at all; you have to rely on an >> > internet connection, hope that the documentation is available online, >> > furthermore you have to search for it. >> > >> > Not installing documentation, might be some reasons for it, but >> > 'practical': I don't see it. >> >> The question whether having documentation ready or not is based on >> individual preferences, there is no general consensus about that as >> you pretend when you claim to "speak in general". At least this is > > That is not what I was after. > > I said that minimizing disk space is a preference. A way to achieve that > is to exclude documentation. Minimizing disk space might be practical in > some cases. But that doesn't mean that if by default / in general / for > everyone the documentation is excluded, that this exclusion is somehow > logical. Or: A -> B doesn't mean B -> A.
Ok, this is more clear than just saying that you speak "in general" as opposite to Ron's opinion. >> what this thread told us. In my understanding the point of this whole >> discussion is to find a way to cater to both sides, (A) having >> documentation ready if you want it but also (B) being able to *easily* >> avoid it if you don't want it. At the moment this issue is not solved >> for (A) AND (B), only for (A). > > Seems you're just repeating what I suggested: if there is a need, check > if it can be possible. Hmm, Obviously we are talking about different things. I thought I clearly showed that there is a need and that the topic of thei thread is to find a solution. > At the moment the only concern seems to be disk space. If that is the > only reason, just do it automatically and/or have a special disk space > concious section. Fully analysing why to exclude would allow that will > ensure it is there when expected, instead of just being an option you > have to search for. No, disk space is not the only reason but the most prominent. For the rest of this paragraph I have no clue what you are talking about. Either it's the language barrier or maybe my lack of tech understanding. -- wobo
