>>>>> "G" == G Branden Robinson <g.branden.robin...@gmail.com> writes:
G> At 2025-01-15T12:45:22-0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
Marvin> I have on a number of occasions used these man pages, and
Marvin> having them installed locally is very helpful. I would
Marvin> rather have the man pages installed without the additional
Marvin> documentation in libpam-doc. Why not (other than a trip
Marvin> through NEW) put them in a new binary package
Marvin> libpam-manpages (arch:all)? I would prefer recommends
Marvin> rather than suggests.
>>
>> Do you actually have a system on which you want these man pages
>> and on which the extra space of libpam-doc would be a problem?
>>
>> Unless there's a compelling need, my answer is that I don't
>> understand why manpages should be separated from other
>> documentation in this instance.
G> Don't we have dpkg filters for this sort of use case?
I honestly can't tell from your message which position you are
supporting, which I do find somewhat frustrating when I'm trying to get
feedback to make a change.
I think that yes, because we have dpkg filters, there's not a compelling
argument to separate the man pages from the rest of the docs.
I think that given the multi-arch issues it still makes sense to
separate the man pages from the m-a: same binaries.
Were it not for multi-arch, I could see an argument that dpkg filters
were sufficient and the man pages could stay in libpam-modules.
But I could also see an argument for minimizing the essential set even
if someone does not use dpkg filters.
