David Brownlee wrote
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Berndt Josef Wulf wrote:
> 
> > This is a weak justification as there are dozents of other so called
> > 'user-base' libaries in our package system for which documentation
> > is always installed.
> >
> > Considering that a user has already downloaded the complete package,
> > it doesn't make sense not to install the documentation (except for
> > binary packages). I personally dislike the direction the development
> > of the NetBSD Packages Tree is taking.
> 
> 	I think a better approach might be to provide a method of
> 	excluding documentation from any package (particularly
> 	useful for handheld and small disk machines). This could
> 	be done as a post install phase which would remove any
> 	entries marked as 'doc' in the PLIST (or similar).
> 
> 	If this seems a reasonable way to go long term, it would
> 	eliminate the split docs packages, except for one or two
> 	that are needed for bootstrap issues.

This sounds like a good idea and given that its implementation is
feasable would find my fullest support. With this it may be possible
to block the installation of auxillary data such as documents,
examples, tutorials etc. as a matter of personal choice.

I found the previous argument not convincing because it failed to
recognize that whilst docs were not welcomed, for reasons described
above, it installs header files and static libraries useless to this
particular user group accounting for appr. 11MB (qt2-libs) of "waste".

cheerio Berndt
-- 
Name    : Berndt Josef Wulf            | +++ With BSD on Packet Radio +++
E-Mail  : wulf@ping.net.au             |    tfkiss, tnt, dpbox, wampes
ICQ     : 18196098                     |  VK5ABN, Nairne, South Australia 
URL     : http://www.ping.net.au/~wulf | MBOX : vk5abn@vk5abn.#lmr.#sa.au.oc
Sysinfo : DEC AXPpci33+, NetBSD-1.5    | BBS  : vk5abn.#lmr.#sa.aus.oc