1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
|
<html><head></head><body><div class="gmail_quote">Olav Vitters <olav@vitters.nl> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap:break-word; font-family: monospace">On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 01:47:51PM +0200, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:<br />> 2012/4/11 Olav Vitters <olav@vitters.nl>:<br />> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 06:17:32AM -0400, Renaud (Ron) Olgiati wrote:<br />> >> On Wednesday 11 Apr 2012 05:35 my mailbox was graced by a message from Olav<br />> >> Vitters who wrote:<br />> >> > I don't see how excluding documentation makes things more practical.<br />> >><br />> >> As in "more practical to have diskspace available for data, than have it used<br />> >> up by documentation I will not need" ?<br />> ><br />> > You're speaking about yourself. I am speaking in general. How is it more<br />> > practical that the documentation is not available? You raise disk space.<br />> > I see that as a benefit if you have a small amount of disk space. But I<br />> > don't
see
how that makes not including documentation practical. Might be<br />> > practical to have the installer automatically detect a small amount of<br />> > disk space and exclude documentation. But in general not having any<br />> > documentation available is not practical at all; you have to rely on an<br />> > internet connection, hope that the documentation is available online,<br />> > furthermore you have to search for it.<br />> ><br />> > Not installing documentation, might be some reasons for it, but<br />> > 'practical': I don't see it.<br />> <br />> The question whether having documentation ready or not is based on<br />> individual preferences, there is no general consensus about that as<br />> you pretend when you claim to "speak in general". At least this is<br /><br />That is not what I was after.<br /><br />I said that minimizing disk space is a preference. A way to achieve that<br />is to exclude
documentation. Minimizing disk space might be practical in<br />some cases. But that doesn't mean that if by default / in general / for<br />everyone the documentation is excluded, that this exclusion is somehow<br />logical. Or: A -> B doesn't mean B -> A.<br /><br />> what this thread told us. In my understanding the point of this whole<br />> discussion is to find a way to cater to both sides, (A) having<br />> documentation ready if you want it but also (B) being able to *easily*<br />> avoid it if you don't want it. At the moment this issue is not solved<br />> for (A) AND (B), only for (A).<br /><br />Seems you're just repeating what I suggested: if there is a need, check<br />if it can be possible.<br /><br />At the moment the only concern seems to be disk space. If that is the<br />only reason, just do it automatically and/or have a special disk space<br />concious section. Fully analysing why to exclude would allow that will<br />ensure it is the
re when
expected, instead of just being an option you<br />have to search for.<br /><br />-- <br />Regards,<br />Olav<br /></pre></blockquote></div><br clear="all">If a flag like --excludedocs works from the command line, there could conceptually exist some /etc/urpmi file that specifies flags that tools should use by default. Since many flags are not universally applicable, this could be a source of issues though. On install, if the user does not check the documentation box, then this is how that feature is selected.<br>
<br>
I see disk space detection as less obvious and potentially problematic as it might block things a user does not want blocked.<br>
<br>
It also occurs to me that there ought to be a way to reverse the block and reprocess packages to install docs that were so blocked... in a gui app.<br>
-- <br>
Sent from my Android tablet. Please excuse my brevity.</body></html>
|
