On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 03:54:46PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 08:56:41PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > The underlying question here was really, "Should PDF documentation be > > installed compressed?" (Or PostScript or OpenOffice etc. in place of > > PDF.) The policy is not worded precisely enough on that subject. > > Obviously, you don't want to install HTML compressed. > > Actually, I do. I run apache on my laptop anyway, since I need it for > other things. Doing 'firefox http://localhost/doc/' instead of trying to > read files in /usr/share/doc directly makes for a transparent way of not > having to deal with the .gz stuff; and the reduced space usage because > of the .html files being compressed is nice.
Really? See, I'd automatically use mc, which also handles compression just fine but doesn't require Apache (and isn't as slow and bloated as Firefox). -- Carl Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] Read my blog at nitpickingblog.blogspot.com. Reviews! Observations! Stupid mistakes you can correct! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
