Re: conventions for packaging (ie: docs)

1998-03-01 Thread Karl M. Hegbloom
> "Adam" == Adam P Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Adam> Mind you, I think splitting docs is generally a good idea, I'd often like to install just the docs so I can find out what something is, and read about it a little to decide whether I need it or not.

Re: conventions for packaging (ie: docs)

1998-02-22 Thread Remco Blaakmeer
On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Adam P. Harris wrote: > [You (Bill Leach)] > >Has the idea been discussed about seperating out more of the > >documentation packages from the executable packages? > > > >It has seemed to me that it would be a great benefit to many sysadms if > >most packages like smail, sendma

Re: conventions for packaging (ie: docs)

1998-02-20 Thread Bill Leach
Both of the suggested reasons exist for my situation (I have machines that can't really afford the space and I have machines that could 'serve' the documentation for software that they don't have installed). OTOH, I also appreciate the potential problems and the general increase in complexity that

Re: conventions for packaging (ie: docs)

1998-02-20 Thread Adam P. Harris
[You (Bill Leach)] >Has the idea been discussed about seperating out more of the >documentation packages from the executable packages? > >It has seemed to me that it would be a great benefit to many sysadms if >most packages like smail, sendmail, qmail, apache, etc. had their >documentation in sep

Re: conventions for packaging (ie: docs)

1998-02-20 Thread Bill Leach
Has the idea been discussed about seperating out more of the documentation packages from the executable packages? It has seemed to me that it would be a great benefit to many sysadms if most packages like smail, sendmail, qmail, apache, etc. had their documentation in seperate packages that were s