Arch Linux

iBertus

Member

From: Greenville, NC

Registered: 2004-11-04

Posts: 2,228

Arch [docs] repo?

Has anyone ever thought about having a [docs] repo for Arch Linux? It seems that very few Arch packages include documentation and it might be helpful if such a repo existed to distribute the stuff excluded from the original packages. Just an idea... any comments?

edit: fixed typo in title.

archdaemon

Member

Registered: 2005-01-27

Posts: 83

Re: Arch [docs] repo?

*Anything* to fix this. It's the one thing I absolutely hate about Arch.

For instance, the mutt manual is actually a flag summary and a pointer to /usr/[local]/doc/muttng/manual.txt. Well?? And *many* programs use /usr/share/doc as a sort of library for help function invocations. They *expect* a text file to be there to bring up so, in Arch, you get a busted key that doesn't do anything and no help and you go off trawling the web.

Why the hell is Arch supposed to be so cool about not making you trawl the web for packages and such a frigging pain about making you trawl the web for the DOCS TO those packages. Makes no damn sense.

If it's really an issue for some folks *not* to have them, I have two lines for you:

crontab -e
10 04 * * * rm -rf /usr/doc /usr/share/doc

Lot easier than what I have to do.

*ahem* *cough*

Yeah - good idea.

sweiss

Member

Registered: 2004-02-16

Posts: 635

Re: Arch [docs] repo?

I'm also missing the docs a bit, like Qt's for example.

But how implementable is this idea I wonder..

---

Some PKGBUILDs: http://members.lycos.co.uk/sweiss3

iBertus

Member

From: Greenville, NC

Registered: 2004-11-04

Posts: 2,228

Re: Arch [docs] repo?

Well, I don't know how everything would work, but I'd probably just be wrappers around most of docs to make them easy to add/remove with pacman.

Take a look at some of the ones that dibble and myself have made for his GIS project and tell me what you think:

ArchGIS forum

Gullible Jones

Member

Registered: 2004-12-29

Posts: 4,863

Re: Arch [docs] repo?

Eh? I'm not aware of any missing man pages...

IceRAM

Member

From: Bucharest, Romania

Registered: 2004-03-04

Posts: 772

Website

Re: Arch [docs] repo?

I've posted my idea of doing this on the maillist some time ago.

Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to implement it. It looks farily easy, requiring minor changes to makepkg.

Of course, somebody should make a [docs] repo afterwards with all the -docs  packages.

---

:: / my web presence

iphitus

Forum Fellow

From: Melbourne, Australia

Registered: 2004-10-09

Posts: 4,927

Re: Arch [docs] repo?

Gullible: It's not man pages, many programs and things distribute their documentation, or further documentation in other formats, such as html, and put them in /usr/share/docs.

iphitus

iBertus

Member

From: Greenville, NC

Registered: 2004-11-04

Posts: 2,228

Re: Arch [docs] repo?

I've posted my idea of doing this on the maillist some time ago.

Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to implement it. It looks farily easy, requiring minor changes to makepkg.

Of course, somebody should make a [docs] repo afterwards with all the -docs  packages.

:oops: I didn't see that post, IceRAM.

Automatically generated PKGBUILDs would be difficult because of the many different formats/locations used by open source projects that distribute docs with the code. Some use ./docs, other ./extra/docs, etc.. when figuring out where in the source tree to put the docs. Others don't distribute docs with source and that would require a browse of their site to find the correct docs.

It would take many man hours to get this sort of thing setup and running correct, but I've always felt that Arch needed this sort of repo to compete in the big-time. I'm willing to help some, as my schedule permits, but I lack the scripting skills to do much serious work on a automated tool. Plus, I'm not convinced that such a tool could be worth while since it would be major amounts of code and handmade PKGBUILDs are so easy.

mezoko

Member

Registered: 2005-03-26

Posts: 310

Website

Re: Arch [docs] repo?

I think it might be very usefull full such a repo or just include them in the packages, but I shouldn't have much say because I don't read them a lot :-/ I should though.

---

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

elasticdog

Member

From: Washington, USA

Registered: 2005-05-02

Posts: 995

Website

Re: Arch [docs] repo?

The one thing that I dislike about Arch (quite possibly the only thing), is the idea behind getting rid of some of the extra documentation.  Especially for a distro that aims to not hold your hand, it would be nice to have easy access to all of the information you can on your local system before having to look elsewhere.  I can see the other side and agree that there is quite a significant space trade-off, but a compromise like having a docs repo or other options to get the documentation are a great idea!

iBertus

Member

From: Greenville, NC

Registered: 2004-11-04

Posts: 2,228

Re: Arch [docs] repo?

I disagree with putting the docs in the regular Arch packages b/c that just isn't the Arch way of doing things. A separate repo would be the best IMHO, and we could also create a tool that could sync the docs for installed packages. It's far less messy than rebuilding all Arch packages to include docs, plus not everyone wants/needs the docs.

iphitus

Forum Fellow

From: Melbourne, Australia

Registered: 2004-10-09

Posts: 4,927

Re: Arch [docs] repo?

aye, most people dont end up needing these packages, and those that do, often just get them themselves.

I just get say the python and any other docos i need myself and keep them in my homedir.

iphitus

sweiss

Member

Registered: 2004-02-16

Posts: 635

Re: Arch [docs] repo?

Hmm, just an idea - makepkg uses a directory called 'pkg' in which it stores all of the package's files. How about creating a 'docs' directory and move all the documentation stuff in there - if the directory has a content, make an extra package out of this directory. if it's empty, don't do anything with it.

---

Some PKGBUILDs: http://members.lycos.co.uk/sweiss3

ozar

Member

From: USA

Registered: 2005-02-18

Posts: 1,686

Re: Arch [docs] repo?

I get most of the info I need from man pages but a separate "docs" repo would be okay for those that want to download them.  Just don't make us download them with the arch packages by default.

---

oz

jackmetal

Member

From: US

Registered: 2005-06-13

Posts: 164

Re: Arch [docs] repo?

I get most of the info I need from man pages but a separate "docs" repo would be okay for those that want to download them.  Just don't make us download them with the arch packages by default.

I agree.  Having them available would be nice for those that need them, but I wouldn't want them by default either.

If I ever need any, I typically just to the package's site and get them; so it's not really an issue for me...but...I could see how having a docs repo that's easily accessible from the forums (or main site) could be beneficial to users newer to Linux. 

I was just thinking that integrating all of the sections might be a nice idea..  Having something like the nice easy access icons at the top of the forums here (for aur, bugs, docs) on each of the sections.  For instance: the wiki, aur, etc...would have the same icons making an easy link between each of them.

---

--

Some of the world's greatest feats were
accomplished by people not smart enough
to know they were impossible.
-- Doug Larson

Dusty

Schwag Merchant

From: Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada

Registered: 2004-01-18

Posts: 5,986

Website

Re: Arch [docs] repo?

If I ever need any, I typically just to the package's site and get them; so it's not really an issue for me...

This is the way its supposed to be done. Its a founding principle of ArchLinux; I would advise against ever expecting it to change, not officially.

Dusty

---

** Arch Linux Apparel and more ** Arch Linux stickers, laptop bags, jewelery ** I wrote a book on Python 3 ** and one on mental health **

Offline

phrakture

Arch Overlord

From: behind you

Registered: 2003-10-29

Posts: 7,879

Website

Re: Arch [docs] repo?

If I ever need any, I typically just to the package's site and get them; so it's not really an issue for me...

This is the way its supposed to be done. Its a founding principle of ArchLinux; I would advise against ever expecting it to change, not officially.

Dusty

Good point... the main key is that arch is supposed to be a networked distro - I mean you can't really be "bleeding edge" if you barely have an internet connection (*looks at Dusty's dial up*).  It's kinda like saying you 1963 camero is "bleeding edge"

There's also networked info browsers (but who the hell uses info, blegh)

---

http://phraktured.net

sweiss

Member

Registered: 2004-02-16

Posts: 635

Re: Arch [docs] repo?

It feels a bit weird opening Qt Designer and when clicking on Help getting a "file not found" sort of message.

---

Some PKGBUILDs: http://members.lycos.co.uk/sweiss3

archdaemon

Member

Registered: 2005-01-27

Posts: 83

Re: Arch [docs] repo?

If I ever need any, I typically just to the package's site and get them; so it's not really an issue for me...

This is the way its supposed to be done. Its a founding principle of ArchLinux; I would advise against ever expecting it to change, not officially.

Dusty

I'm not looking for a fight but a founding principle of Arch is 'rm -rf /usr/doc'? That sounds pretty... non-optimal. So because Linux is renowned for its superb documentation already, we should encourage developers to excel even further and reward those who take the time and effort to provide additional documentation, examples, and configurations by deleting them? We should encourage people to adopt Arch as their distro by telling them 'You're going to be spending the rest of your lives in a search engine trying to figure out how to make crap work if you use Arch!' We should give people a brilliant Windows-like oxymoron: 'Trouble connecting to the net? Search the web for help!'

Yes, I know there are man pages and those are the gospel and info is satanspawn but I think /usr/doc is a bit above average between those two extremes.

Oh, and as a fer instance @ Gullible Jones:

:pacman -Ql netcat
netcat /usr/
netcat /usr/bin/
netcat /usr/bin/nc

There's a killer 61K readme in the tarball and a directory of demo scripts and lots of well-commented code, though. If I was packaging it, I'd stick almost the whole thing in /usr/doc.

But, no, I don't expect it to change.

It feels a bit weird opening Qt Designer and when clicking on Help getting a "file not found" sort of message.

Amen. That's a *broken* package.

Offline

Snowman

Developer/Forum Fellow

From: Montreal, Canada

Registered: 2004-08-20

Posts: 5,212

Re: Arch [docs] repo?

It feels a bit weird opening Qt Designer and when clicking on Help getting a "file not found" sort of message.

For that specific case, you might want to do a bug report.  I've read on the TUR ML about a unwritten rule that if there is a menu item or button to access help/docs, then the docs should be included.

sweiss

Member

Registered: 2004-02-16

Posts: 635

Re: Arch [docs] repo?

I'll do so then, though that sounds like complicating things to me.

EDIT: Just noticed there's already a bug report regarding that.

---

Some PKGBUILDs: http://members.lycos.co.uk/sweiss3

phrakture

Arch Overlord

From: behind you

Registered: 2003-10-29

Posts: 7,879

Website

Re: Arch [docs] repo?

I'll do so then, though that sounds like complicating things to me.

EDIT: Just noticed there's already a bug report regarding that.

Here's the deal with that - one of the good things I see about not maintaining docs is that most of them are constantly evolving.  The best way to view documentation is online, as you'll always see the most up to date version.  If a program specifically needs the documentation to work properly, it's a bug to not have the docs there.  But if all possible, it's best to stick with the online docs.

---

http://phraktured.net

citral

Member

Registered: 2005-05-07

Posts: 87

Re: Arch [docs] repo?

Nvidia does seem to be an exception though?

2348 pyros $ find /usr/share/doc/
/usr/share/doc/
/usr/share/doc/NVIDIA_GLX-1.0
/usr/share/doc/NVIDIA_GLX-1.0/include
/usr/share/doc/NVIDIA_GLX-1.0/include/GL
/usr/share/doc/NVIDIA_GLX-1.0/include/GL/gl.h
/usr/share/doc/NVIDIA_GLX-1.0/include/GL/glext.h
/usr/share/doc/NVIDIA_GLX-1.0/include/GL/glx.h
/usr/share/doc/NVIDIA_GLX-1.0/include/GL/glxext.h
/usr/share/doc/NVIDIA_GLX-1.0/NVIDIA_Changelog
/usr/share/doc/NVIDIA_GLX-1.0/XF86Config.sample
/usr/share/doc/NVIDIA_GLX-1.0/nvidia-settings-user-guide.txt
/usr/share/doc/NVIDIA_GLX-1.0/README.txt
/usr/share/doc/NVIDIA_GLX-1.0/LICENSE
2348 pyros $

Personally I never used anything from /usr(/share)/doc. Firstly because most of the time I don't even know programs have stored docs there, and secondly because I prefer the web for finding info/docs. But I can happily live with a few extra MBs, so if this ever gets changed, I have no problems with it.

---

One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero,
they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs.

phrakture

Arch Overlord

From: behind you

Registered: 2003-10-29

Posts: 7,879

Website

Re: Arch [docs] repo?

The problem with nvidia is that it's one of those goofy abnormal packages - the nvidia pacman package contains the actual installer, which is run on install and installs itself.  so, those would have to be explicitly removed after the fact.
/me punches the nvidia people in the face

---

http://phraktured.net

sweiss

Member

Registered: 2004-02-16

Posts: 635

Re: Arch [docs] repo?

How about KDevelop?

I don't have it currently installed but I remember it had a documentation reference which included support for many libraries, using their documentation.

---

Some PKGBUILDs: http://members.lycos.co.uk/sweiss3