I demand that Travis Crump may or may not have written...
[snip]
> Popcon suggests only 8% of users are on dial-up [based on package ppp and
> 'votes']
Use of ppp does not imply use of dial-up.
--
| Darren Salt | linux at youmustbejoking | nr. Ashington, | Toon
| Debian GNU/Linux | or ds
On 09/05/07 17:55 +0530, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag said ...
> I filed a lintian wishlist bug (#527363) requesting a I/W tag when non
> documentation packages recommend documentation packages.
>
> With Install-Recommends being the default, many packages pull in a lot of
> associated documentation. The
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote:
> Hi debian-devel,
>
> From policy 7.2 Binary Dependencies - Depends, Recommends, Suggests, Enhances,
> Pre-Depends
>
> Recommends
>
> This declares a strong, but not absolute, dependency.
>
> The Recommends field should list packages that would be found tog
Travis Crump wrote:
> Daniel Burrows wrote:
>> On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 02:58:56PM -0700, Russ Allbery
>> was heard to say:
I think that lintian warning is the right way to do it.
>>> I don't -- I think there are too many false positives for a lintian
>>> warning given the thread. I also thin
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 06:14:34PM -0400, Travis Crump wrote:
If the documentation is something designed to be viewed in a web browser
and the user has broadband, it is arguably easier to find it on the web.
Even knowing precisely where it is[/usr/share/doc
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 06:14:34PM -0400, Travis Crump wrote:
>> If the documentation is something designed to be viewed in a web browser
>> and the user has broadband, it is arguably easier to find it on the web.
>> Even knowing precisely where it is[/usr/s
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 06:14:34PM -0400, Travis Crump wrote:
> If the documentation is something designed to be viewed in a web browser
> and the user has broadband, it is arguably easier to find it on the web.
> Even knowing precisely where it is[/usr/share/doc/aptitude is it -doc
> or just apti
Roger Lynn writes:
> On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 07:00:25PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 09:47:56PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
>> > As a practical matter, downgrading these dependencies will cause
>> > aptitude and other package managers to believe that the document
Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 02:58:56PM -0700, Russ Allbery was
> heard to say:
>>> I think that lintian warning is the right way to do it.
>> I don't -- I think there are too many false positives for a lintian
>> warning given the thread. I also think this is fundamentally go
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On Saturday 09 May 2009 00:58:56 Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Wouldn't our users expect to get the documentation with many of these
>> packages by default? Normally you do get some documentation with
>> things, and I've always been surprised by, say, ntp not including any
>>
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:39:21AM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 06:55:43PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli
> was heard to say:
> > I don't think that the mere fact that we changed the default behavior
> > of apt-get/aptitude should get in the way of that maintainer's
> > choic
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 06:55:43PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli
was heard to say:
> I don't think that the mere fact that we changed the default behavior
> of apt-get/aptitude should get in the way of that maintainer's
> choice. If we used to live in a world where, by maintainer choice, doc
> was no
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 02:58:56PM -0700, Russ Allbery was
heard to say:
> > I think that lintian warning is the right way to do it.
>
> I don't -- I think there are too many false positives for a lintian
> warning given the thread. I also think this is fundamentally going in
> the wrong direct
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 06:49:38PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli
was heard to say:
> On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 09:47:56PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> > As a practical matter, downgrading these dependencies will cause
> > aptitude and other package managers to believe that the documentation
> > is
On Saturday 09 May 2009 00:58:56 Russ Allbery wrote:
> Wouldn't our users expect to get the documentation
> with many of these packages by default? Normally you do get some
> documentation with things, and I've always been surprised by, say, ntp
> not including any documentation without installing
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 07:00:25PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 09:47:56PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> > As a practical matter, downgrading these dependencies will cause
> > aptitude and other package managers to believe that the documentation
> > is unnecessary a
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 11:31:05AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > That seems like a good reason to go through this exercise.
>
> No. Figure out which packages actually should be changed, *then* file
> bugs.
By “this exercise” I'm referring to the discussion here in
debian
On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 11:31:05AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Wouldn't this MBF shake out which packages actually have good reason for
> a strong (i.e. pulled-in-by-default-package-tool-behaviour) dependency
> relationship to their docs from those that do not?
At the expense of the time of maintai
Steve Langasek writes:
> Yes, and the MBF proposal *doesn't* take into account packages that
> previously *did* have a hard dep on their doc packages and only
> demoted it to a Recommends: once the default behavior changed.
>
> Cf. swat, samba-doc.
Wouldn't this MBF shake out which packages ac
Neil Williams writes:
> In which case, the MBF could concentrate more on libraries and other
> packages that have -doc packages rather than on
> applications. Libraries that Recommend: libfoo-doc (as mine did and
> which I'll fix in the next upload) could conceivably be bringing in
> the docs not
Giacomo Catenazzi writes:
> Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote:
>> Would there be any objections to filing minor/wishlist bugs against
>> these packages? I am including a tentative dd-list corresponding to
>> the packages [1] that I found after manually removing some packages
>> [2]. I will modify it
Neil Williams wrote:
> On Fri, 08 May 2009 11:59:27 +0200
> Frank Küster wrote:
>
>> Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
>>
>> > The development documentation for libraries and programming languages
>> > should not be installed by the runtime.
>> >
>> > This probably means that packages like perl, python, t
On Thu, 07 May 2009, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote:
> From policy 7.2 Binary Dependencies - Depends, Recommends, Suggests, Enhances,
> Pre-Depends
>
> Recommends
>
> This declares a strong, but not absolute, dependency.
>
> The Recommends field should list packages that would be found toge
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 06:55:43PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 10:14:05AM +0200, Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
> > While I support the effort to reduce disk space usage, I strongly
> > disagree with this proposal.
> > A software is worth nothing without appropriate documenta
Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 17:55 +0530, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag a écrit :
> Debian GNOME Maintainers
>devhelp (U)
False positive. A documentation browser is useless without documentation
to browse.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you i
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 10:14:05AM +0200, Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
> While I support the effort to reduce disk space usage, I strongly
> disagree with this proposal.
>
> A software is worth nothing without appropriate documentation.
No, that's subjective, with the subject being the package
maintaine
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 09:47:56PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> As a practical matter, downgrading these dependencies will cause
> aptitude and other package managers to believe that the documentation
> is unnecessary and suggest removing it.
Even if the user marked as non-automatic the involv
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 04:06:47PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Daniel Burrows (07/05/2009):
> > As a practical matter, downgrading these dependencies will cause
> > aptitude and other package managers to believe that the documentation
> > is unnecessary and suggest removing it.
>
> So that o
Daniel Burrows (07/05/2009):
> As a practical matter, downgrading these dependencies will cause
> aptitude and other package managers to believe that the documentation
> is unnecessary and suggest removing it.
So that one has a chance to notice possibly unneeded doc? Works for me.
Mraw,
KiBi.
Zitat von Neil Williams :
I rarely write TeX but I write a lot of docbook and expect to be able
to convert that to PDF when necessary - without needing to care about
how that happens or how to write TeX myself.
Well, you might as well use the FO output and use fop to convert to
PDF. This impl
On Fr, 08 Mai 2009, Neil Williams wrote:
> TeX docs should only be installed on systems where users need to write
> TeX - any dependencies that bring in TeX docs merely to support
Come on. That we do NOT install the docs by default is already a
concession. We could stop this discussion and I kill
On Fri, 08 May 2009 11:59:27 +0200
Frank Küster wrote:
> Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
>
> > The development documentation for libraries and programming languages
> > should not be installed by the runtime.
> >
> > This probably means that packages like perl, python, texlive... should
> > provide a $fo
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 08:58:51AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Fri, 8 May 2009, Christian Perrier wrote:
>
>> I bringed the discussion in out maintenance list but dropping
>> Recommends to Suggests is likely to make us provide a "broken" home page
>> for SWAT by default. We could of course pat
Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
> The development documentation for libraries and programming languages
> should not be installed by the runtime.
>
> This probably means that packages like perl, python, texlive... should
> provide a $foo, $foo-doc and $foo-runtime (or -bin, or lib$foo, or
> whatever). Othe
On Fri, 8 May 2009 08:58:51 +0200 (CEST)
Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Fri, 8 May 2009, Christian Perrier wrote:
>
> > I bringed the discussion in out maintenance list but dropping
> > Recommends to Suggests is likely to make us provide a "broken" home page
> > for SWAT by default. We could of cours
On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 17:55 +0530, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote:
>
> I filed a lintian wishlist bug (#527363) requesting a I/W tag when non
> documentation packages recommend documentation packages.
While I support the effort to reduce disk space usage, I strongly
disagree with this proposal.
A s
On Fri, 8 May 2009, Christian Perrier wrote:
I bringed the discussion in out maintenance list but dropping
Recommends to Suggests is likely to make us provide a "broken" home page
for SWAT by default. We could of course patch SWAT so that the page
explicitely says that adding samba-doc is needed
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote:
> I filed a lintian wishlist bug (#527363) requesting a I/W tag when non
> documentation packages recommend documentation packages.
(...)
>
> Would there be any objections to filing minor/wishlist bugs against these
> packages? I am including a tentative dd-list corr
Quoting Y Giridhar Appaji Nag (app...@debian.org):
> Debian Samba Maintainers
>samba
swat Recommends: samba-doc
swat is a web interface to administer samba. Its main page currently
has links to Samba documentation in HTML.
I bringed the discussion in out maintenance list but dropping
Reco
As a practical matter, downgrading these dependencies will cause
aptitude and other package managers to believe that the documentation
is unnecessary and suggest removing it.
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? C
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag ha scritto:
> Would there be any objections to filing minor/wishlist bugs against these
> packages? I am including a tentative dd-list corresponding to the packages
> [1] that I found after manually removing some packages [2]. I will modify it
> based on suggestions.
>
> Lu
On Thu, 7 May 2009 17:55:44 +0530
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote:
> Would there be any objections to filing minor/wishlist bugs against these
> packages? I am including a tentative dd-list corresponding to the packages
> [1] that I found after manually removing some packages [2]. I will modify it
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote:
> I filed a lintian wishlist bug (#527363) requesting a I/W tag when non
> documentation packages recommend documentation packages.
That might be a good idea. However, for the texlive packages, we'll just
add lintian overrides.
> With Install-Recommends being the de
Hi debian-devel,
From policy 7.2 Binary Dependencies - Depends, Recommends, Suggests, Enhances,
Pre-Depends
Recommends
This declares a strong, but not absolute, dependency.
The Recommends field should list packages that would be found together
with this one in all but unusual instal
44 matches
Mail list logo
