| 1 |
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 00:31:35 -0500 |
| 2 |
Alexandre Rostovtsev <tetromino@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 03:41 +0100, Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
| 5 |
> > For completeness, could you post a list of packages that would |
| 6 |
> > benefit from your proposed changes? It's a little thing called |
| 7 |
> > scope. :) |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I cannot provide you the full list; for that I would have to rebuild |
| 10 |
> the full tree with USE=doc enabled, and I enable it only for a small |
| 11 |
> number of packages. But I can give you the packages that I have |
| 12 |
> installed on my system right now that install a nontrivial set of |
| 13 |
> documentation files in /usr/share/doc/$PF, files that are worth |
| 14 |
> bookmarking and would benefit from a location that doesn't change on |
| 15 |
> every revision or version bump: |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I understand you use some kind of graphical file manager that opens |
| 18 |
files for you into some kind of "document viewer". I wouldn't think |
| 19 |
anyone tab-completing this on a command line would ever have the need to |
| 20 |
"bookmark" stuff otherwise. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> [...] |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
That's rather a long list. I expected a much shorter list of packages |
| 25 |
that use /usr/share/doc/$PF to store data that is read at run time |
| 26 |
(which they probably shouldn't do in the first place) so they would |
| 27 |
benefit from this. I was not asking for a list of packages that install |
| 28 |
documentation in /usr/share/doc/$PF. If that was the only criterium that |
| 29 |
mattered, then I wouldn't have asked for a list. :) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
jer |
Archives