Olav Vitters <olav@vitters.nl> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 01:47:51PM +0200, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
> 2012/4/11 Olav Vitters <olav@vitters.nl>:
> > 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.

> 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.

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 the
+ re when
+expected, instead of just being an option you
have to search for.

-- 
Regards,
Olav