Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

dav7 · 2008-03-17 15:35:34

Why doesn't Arch Linux have the info command?

This has me infuriated beyond words.

WHY ISN'T THERE A PACKAGE FOR IT?!

Okay, so it might require TeX or LaTex, which I'm fine with installing... anything for the info command!

Note that I don't use AUR (it has me all confused), so if there's a package in AUR I #1 wouldn't know there is and #2 wouldn't know how to use it.

PLEASE... HELP!! Thanks

-dav7

PS. I'm trying not to appear troll-like, if you were wondering. I was trying to appear infuriated, which I am

Last edited by dav7 (2008-03-18 05:19:06)

Misfit138 · 2008-03-17 15:42:02

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/FAQ … ackages.3F

carlocci · 2008-03-17 16:18:28

While I find the lack of info files demeaning and I think most of the reasons for it to be BS, as the only one I find right is bandwidth consumption and diskspace, I think it's not that big of a deal as you can install what you need from AUR with the proper documentation AFAIK.

So you should really use AUR, unless you want to hear the usual "If you don't like it, fork" which is fine too.

If you want to manage the "aur repositories" you could download yaourt, a pacman wrapper which is able to search the aur website for you.
Open AUR and search for it, download the tarball in some directory of yours, as normal user run makepkg*, it will download files and make the package.tar.gz for you, install yaourt with pacman -U packagename.tar.gz.
You can use this for any AUR package.
Remember that any user can upload a makepkg so you might want to check the install scripts when building the package.

*you might need to install some other tools like fakeroot, if you want to build as user: pacman -S fakeroot

Read more here: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_User_Guidelines

Last edited by carlocci (2008-03-17 16:55:30)

phrakture · 2008-03-17 16:39:26

I really hate the "omg this is terrible" attitude on this issue. Making arch packages is easy as hell. If all you people that are upset about 'info' were to make a repo, this problem would be moot. In fact, I could probably script something to rebuild all of [core] with ONLY info pages in a few minutes.

praka123 · 2008-03-17 17:19:14

do build a package.info command-really missing

dschauer · 2008-03-17 20:35:43

dav7: if you can't figure out AUR, then use yaourt.

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=25718
http://archlinux.fr/yaourt-en/
http://linuxinside.blogspot.com/2008/02/yaourt.html

I installed make-info, and it needed texinfo, so that was installed as well:

yaourt -S make-info

So, if you need "info", install "texinfo"

Doing a quick search through the package list I found info packages for various other commands as well. You will need to install those packages if you want the info pages for those commands.

Last edited by dschauer (2008-03-17 20:43:31)

Mandor · 2008-03-17 22:25:41

While getting docs is not a problem, I just can not comprehend why, really, they are just not there - the claim that they take space or any kind of resource is quite absurd. Just wondering, nothing more, I don't really miss info pages.

shining · 2008-03-17 22:37:17

Mandor wrote:

While getting docs is not a problem, I just can not comprehend why, really, they are just not there - the claim that they take space or any kind of resource is quite absurd. Just wondering, nothing more, I don't really miss info pages.

Same here, I don't care at all, but I don't understand neither why they need to be stripped if a few users want them.
On the other hand, I also hate the "omg this is terrible" attitude, and if you care, you indeed can always hack something together to build info packages.
Also it's all available online anyway.

rson451 · 2008-03-18 03:08:12

i think that the decision to remove info pages is good. above all things i hate having redundant documentation. both display the same information and more (most?) users use man. i personally had never heard of info pages until i first happened upon these discussions on the forums in the past. plus the fact that they are available as dschauer already mentioned closes the book for me on this one.

while i don't normally recommend yoaurt, if you really MUST use the aur AND dont feel like taking the time to learn it, yoaurt is probably the way to go.

dav7 · 2008-03-18 05:15:56

I understand about yaourt, and had it installed before I had to reinstall my system (I oopseyed the filesystem with cpio accidentally, and replaced the binaries in my filesystem with those in the initramfs - OUCH). So I do know about yaourt, and I have used it... it's okay really.

Okay, so yaourt isn't that much of an issue. I can use it if required to.

I don't like the "this is terrible" attitude either and didn't exactly want to make everyone think that was my general line of thinking. I just want to understand why Arch doesn't have the info command included, or available as a package!

What sane reason exists for the info pages not being included with Arch Linux or being made available as an official package?

Not trying to sound pushy, but I just want to understand. I forget exactly which ones that do so, but some manpages that don't give alot of help regarding certain commands reference the info command. The ls manpage does list the options fairly comprehensively, but the bottom of the manpage is a classic example of what I'm trying to say:

The ls manpage wrote:

SEE ALSO
The full documentation for ls is maintained as a Texinfo manual. If
the info and ls programs are properly installed at your site, the com‐
mand

info ls

should give you access to the complete manual.

-dav7

Last edited by dav7 (2008-03-18 05:19:59)

Allan · 2008-03-18 05:35:27

dav7 wrote:

What sane reason exists for the info pages not being included with Arch Linux or being made available as an official package?

Sane reason? Well... providing them as separate packages takes time the devs don't have and they have no interest in creating more time for it. Interest is an important thing for work people are doing in their free time.

neotuli · 2008-03-18 05:57:45

Really, it's just a decision someone made when they were starting out the distro, and it's stuck around.
As far as I know, most of the logic was that what info pages usually provide can be better found on the software's website in more extensive documentation, which is more up to date and has the same availability anyway (well.. let's not forget that arch is really designed around the idea that network connectivity is available most of the time).

I hope that answers it.

kakTuZ · 2008-03-18 12:10:03

There is a FAQ entry in the wiki with some links to older discussions.
Why doesn't Arch include docs and info pages in its packages?

stonecrest · 2008-03-18 15:29:02

Allan wrote:

dav7 wrote:
What sane reason exists for the info pages not being included with Arch Linux or being made available as an official package?
Sane reason? Well... providing them as separate packages takes time the devs don't have and they have no interest in creating more time for it. Interest is an important thing for work people are doing in their free time.

No one is asking for the devs to provide separate info packages. The obvious solution is to remove the single line of code from the makepkg script that strips info pages (honestly, you'll survive without that extra 40mb of disk space). Or at least make the doc option the default and start building them into packages. It was a bad decision that has unfortunately stuck. And it's not going to change because devs apparently know better than us what we want on our systems. The Arch Way, which says "Arch Linux defines simplicity as a lightweight base structure without unnecessary...modifications", apparently applies to everything but info pages.

Cerebral · 2008-03-18 15:41:15

stonecrest wrote:

And it's not going to change because devs apparently know better than us what we want on our systems.

That's unfair. We never once said "you don't want info pages on your systems", but we've often said "we don't want to provide info pages in our packages". There's a difference, and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in our mouths. We certainly don't stop you from doing it yourself, and have encouraged that many times.

That said, I'm ambivalent towards them - I couldn't care either way. However, if we decide to bow to pressure and start including them, I'm not going to go and rebuild all of my packages right away just so they're included, and I bet most devs agree - they'd be introduced gradually, as packages were rebuilt over time. It won't be a sudden thing, if it ever does happen.

schivmeister · 2008-03-18 15:48:20

Why would we need anything other than a man?

shining · 2008-03-18 16:01:54

Cerebral wrote:

That's unfair. We never once said "you don't want info pages on your systems", but we've often said "we don't want to provide info pages in our packages". There's a difference, and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in our mouths. We certainly don't stop you from doing it yourself, and have encouraged that many times.

It's still much easier to remove info pages when they are installed by default than to get them back when they are not.
If they were installed by default, I believe that many users like me wouldn't mind. The users that want them would be happy. And the others who don't want them only have to : rm -r /usr/{,share/}{info,doc,gtk-doc} /opt/*/{info,doc,gtk-doc}

That said, I'm ambivalent towards them - I couldn't care either way. However, if we decide to bow to pressure and start including them, I'm not going to go and rebuild all of my packages right away just so they're included, and I bet most devs agree - they'd be introduced gradually, as packages were rebuilt over time. It won't be a sudden thing, if it ever does happen.

Sure, that would be fine.

phrakture · 2008-03-18 16:14:09

Ya know, if I were a smart guy, I'd use The Google to find that this has been discussed for the past 5 years and that every argument that both sides have said here and now has been rehashed to death.

I will put it simply: We're all lazy. All of us. You. Me. That guy.

Anyone can provide info pages. Do it. Build some packages. Shit, patch makepkg and rebuild ALL packages from scratch. Do it, let me know the results, and where I can rsync the packages from, just for the love of all that is holy, do something about it instead of whining.

dschauer · 2008-03-18 16:26:05

schivmeister wrote:

Why would we need anything other than a man?

The way that is worded could be considered off topic...

...back to the present discussion.
Because, albeit unfortunately, many upstream developers don't include all the documentation in the man pages, and instead only include it in the info pages. Some don't even include a man page at all, and only an info page.

I rarely use info. My preference would be that projects at a minimum provide all the documentation in the man pages that they include in the info. If they feel that man is a deficient tool, then maybe an alternate to man should be be provided that is a drop in replacement, yet adds the needed extra support that info is supposed to provide.

As far as Arch goes, well, meh. Since I rarely use info, when the documentation is missing/incomplete, I just google for it. Even with other distros, when the man pages are deficient, even if the info pages are present, it does not occur to me usually to look at them, most often I just go to google.

Borosai · 2008-03-18 16:54:32

I'm certain this solution has been stated many times, but here it is again:

If you feel that the usefulness of a package is hindered by its lack of info pages, simply create an additional package (for example, ls-info, gimp-info, etc.) and upload it to the AUR. Eventually, all of the desired/requested/popular/useful info pages will be available to the Arch community, by the Arch community. It's one way to give back.

shining · 2008-03-18 17:01:31

phrakture wrote:

Ya know, if I were a smart guy, I'd use The Google to find that this has been discussed for the past 5 years and that every argument that both sides have said here and now has been rehashed to death.
I will put it simply: We're all lazy. All of us. You. Me. That guy.
Anyone can provide info pages. Do it. Build some packages. Shit, patch makepkg and rebuild ALL packages from scratch. Do it, let me know the results, and where I can rsync the packages from, just for the love of all that is holy, do something about it instead of whining.

Well, since we are all lazy, why not going for the simplest solution?
The packages are already built once by developers. Enabling the doc option back requires 0 additional efforts.
And all these packages are already mirrored and easily available to everyone.
As Cerebral said, it would be done progressively, naturally and transparently, as packages are upgraded.

phrakture · 2008-03-18 17:21:46

shining wrote:

Well, since we are all lazy, why not going for the simplest solution?
The packages are already built once by developers. Enabling the doc option back requires 0 additional efforts.

phrakture wrote:

Anyone can provide info pages. Do it. Build some packages. Shit, patch makepkg and rebuild ALL packages from scratch. Do it, let me know the results, and where I can rsync the packages from

Do it. I will rsync them. I swear.

Misfit138 · 2008-03-18 17:23:38

shining wrote:

phrakture wrote:
Ya know, if I were a smart guy, I'd use The Google to find that this has been discussed for the past 5 years and that every argument that both sides have said here and now has been rehashed to death.
I will put it simply: We're all lazy. All of us. You. Me. That guy.
Anyone can provide info pages. Do it. Build some packages. Shit, patch makepkg and rebuild ALL packages from scratch. Do it, let me know the results, and where I can rsync the packages from, just for the love of all that is holy, do something about it instead of whining.
Well, since we are all lazy, why not going for the simplest solution?
The packages are already built once by developers. Enabling the doc option back requires 0 additional efforts.
And all these packages are already mirrored and easily available to everyone.
As Cerebral said, it would be done progressively, naturally and transparently, as packages are upgraded.

Shining, if you file a feature request using the above, tactful language, I'll vote for it, and I am sure it will be taken seriously by the devs.
Let's face it, we've been surviving this long without them, it's not do-or-die, but I am sure the devs will agree to stop stripping them if enough of the community wants it.

Some of us should take as much time as Shining did to simply communicate with a measure of diplomacy. Arch is free. Let's give the devs respect.

eerok · 2008-03-18 19:05:54

Misfit138 wrote:

Let's face it, we've been surviving this long without them, it's not do-or-die, but I am sure the devs will agree to stop stripping them if enough of the community wants it.

I think it would be great if docs were no longer stripped. Usually it makes no practical difference to me, but at times I really miss them.

stonecrest · 2008-03-18 20:20:31

phrakture wrote:

Anyone can provide info pages. Do it. Build some packages. Shit, patch makepkg and rebuild ALL packages from scratch. Do it, let me know the results, and where I can rsync the packages from, just for the love of all that is holy, do something about it instead of whining.

This is silly. It makes no sense for any of us to patch makepkg locally and it's a trivial patch. No one is asking for every package to suddenly get rebuilt (well, I'm not). We just want the default changed so that packages will get docs over time. This is minimal work on everyone's part, which seems to coincide nicely with your "humans are lazy" mantra.

Arch Linux

#1 2008-03-17 15:35:34

Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#2 2008-03-17 15:42:02

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#3 2008-03-17 16:18:28

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#4 2008-03-17 16:39:26

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#5 2008-03-17 17:19:14

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#6 2008-03-17 20:35:43

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#7 2008-03-17 22:25:41

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#8 2008-03-17 22:37:17

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#9 2008-03-18 03:08:12

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#10 2008-03-18 05:15:56

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#11 2008-03-18 05:35:27

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#12 2008-03-18 05:57:45

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#13 2008-03-18 12:10:03

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#14 2008-03-18 15:29:02

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#15 2008-03-18 15:41:15

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#16 2008-03-18 15:48:20

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#17 2008-03-18 16:01:54

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#18 2008-03-18 16:14:09

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#19 2008-03-18 16:26:05

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#20 2008-03-18 16:54:32

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#21 2008-03-18 17:01:31

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#22 2008-03-18 17:21:46

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#23 2008-03-18 17:23:38

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#24 2008-03-18 19:05:54

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#25 2008-03-18 20:20:31

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

Board footer