You are not logged in.
I don't see why documentation should be stripped from the packages. Why?
If it's because you want smaller package sizes, then I propose:
Make makepkg generate *two* packages. <pkgname>.pkg.tar.gz and <pkgname>-docs.tar.gz, containing the files that originally would have been removed.
Running: Arch Linux i686, x86_64, ppc
Offline
that creates more work for devs. its easier to just grab the pkgbuild and add options=('docs') and run makepkg again. not many people read local docs anyway.
Offline
There ARE packages which have useful docs, though.
For example, many (such as the core gnu tools) have info entries instead of man pages as their main documentation, and stripping them forces the user to time-consumingly surf the web just to recall a command line option (s)he forgot (not to mention that not everyone has permanent internet connection).
In another post I read "We package what upstream gives us.", which obviously is not true, but should be.
Offline
this has been discussed to death. Search the forums.
Offline
It's been discussed couple of times - this is the last I remember: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=45583
Official FAQ guideline:
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/FAQ … ackages.3F
Summary: you're welcome to do ..-doc package yourself, even submit to AUR if you want.
Offline
I don't see why documentation should be stripped from the packages. Why?
That's a phase everyone's been into around his 20th-30th post.
Some users just hate documentation, with those users being the devs, I believe.
You are free to fork arch linux or to patch this behaviour making -doc packages in aur for binary pkgs and adding the doc option to PKGBUILDs.
Offline
I don't hate documentation...just info pages.
"Be conservative in what you send; be liberal in what you accept." -- Postel's Law
"tacos" -- Cactus' Law
"t̥͍͎̪̪͗a̴̻̩͈͚ͨc̠o̩̙͈ͫͅs͙͎̙͊ ͔͇̫̜t͎̳̀a̜̞̗ͩc̗͍͚o̲̯̿s̖̣̤̙͌ ̖̜̈ț̰̫͓ạ̪͖̳c̲͎͕̰̯̃̈o͉ͅs̪ͪ ̜̻̖̜͕" -- -̖͚̫̙̓-̺̠͇ͤ̃ ̜̪̜ͯZ͔̗̭̞ͪA̝͈̙͖̩L͉̠̺͓G̙̞̦͖O̳̗͍
Offline