Re: "doc" option

[Aleksej Saushev <asau%inbox.ru@localhost>]

Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost> writes:

> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 01:17:19AM +0300, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
>> Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost> writes:
>> 
>> > On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 02:07:16AM +0300, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
>> >> Unless anyone objects in a week, I'll start adding "doc" option to 
>> >> packages
>> >> I'm interested to be stripped of installed documentation. First positions
>> >> in the queue are occupied by modular X.org packages. I'm not going to 
>> >> change
>> >> current state, default will be to install documentation.
>> >
>> > Please do NOT randomly strip off documentation. The *only* case where
>> > such an option should be added to an X.org package is if it requires
>> > additional (non-trivial) dependencies. Do not make the tree harder to
>> > maintain than necessary.
>> 
>> Do you consider groff a trivial dependency? I don't.
>
> Yes. More importantly, you don't need it to create the man pages.

You need it to view them. Alternative is creating catpages, which are larger
and still as useless.

>> I don't see why anyone wants to use man pages on mobile device either,
>> all of them add perceptible dead weight nevertheless.
>
> That argument doesn't really cut either. Man pages and other forms of
> documentation tend to be a lot larger than other crap like static
> libraries. Seriously, if you want to build an image for a space
> constrained system, take a package and prune the file list by sed/awk/...

How does that help? Does pkg_add support filtering files out?
Are you going to add this functionality any time soon?

>> There's not a big problem to maintain package with few options.
>
> Yes, it is a major PITA.

I maintain several packages with a number of options and don't see the problem,
what exactly is it?


-- 
HE CE3OH...