[pcre] pcre-doc

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[pcre] pcre-doc

Gerrit P. Haase
Hello,

pcre requires pcre-doc.  Isn't it possible to use pcre without having
the docs installed?


Gerrit
--
=^..^=

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [pcre] pcre-doc

Dave Korn
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
> Hello,
>
> pcre requires pcre-doc.  Isn't it possible to use pcre without having
> the docs installed?
>
 

  Well, I'd say it isn't possible to use _any_ package without RTFMing, in the
most general case!

  I think that making sure the docs get installed along with the package is
probably an effective way to reduce the amount of support calls it would
otherwise bring in to the main list.  We'd get lots of questions that we'd
have to answer with "RTFM... _what_ FM?  Oh, yes, we forgot to say that first
you have to ITFM before you can RTFM...."

  I don't think it should be made easy to install a package without also
getting its docs.  Anyone who's _desparate_ to confuse themselves can, of
course, deselect them in the chooser and then untick the "Install Missing
Dependencies" box.....  (see earlier thread!)


    cheers,
      DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [pcre] pcre-doc

Yaakov (Cygwin/X)
In reply to this post by Gerrit P. Haase
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
> pcre requires pcre-doc.  Isn't it possible to use pcre without having
> the docs installed?

Probably.  When I took over pcre due to the security vulnerability, I
wondered about this as well, but I decided to leave the status-quo in
the meantime.  I'll probably remove this in the next release (but move
the man1's to pcre).


Yaakov
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDi3VipiWmPGlmQSMRAgxpAJ9vR6E7QYFe4S27afpm0qdsSEBQywCfTi+l
mZuPJaBOLy15aUvxUXnXF8Q=
=QqvR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [pcre] pcre-doc

Gerrit P. Haase
In reply to this post by Dave Korn
Dave schrieb:

> Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> pcre requires pcre-doc.  Isn't it possible to use pcre without having
>> the docs installed?
>>
 

>   Well, I'd say it isn't possible to use _any_ package without RTFMing, in the
> most general case!


:-)


>   I think that making sure the docs get installed along with the package is
> probably an effective way to reduce the amount of support calls it would
> otherwise bring in to the main list.  We'd get lots of questions that we'd
> have to answer with "RTFM... _what_ FM?  Oh, yes, we forgot to say that first
> you have to ITFM before you can RTFM...."

>   I don't think it should be made easy to install a package without also
> getting its docs.  Anyone who's _desparate_ to confuse themselves can, of
> course, deselect them in the chooser and then untick the "Install Missing
> Dependencies" box.....  (see earlier thread!)


Then it would be better to not split the package in several parts.  I
include all the docs and manuals in the main package e.g. with gcc or
perl and with small packages I don't even think about splitting.  On the
other hand my doc packages doesn't require anything and no package
requires its doc package to be installed.


Gerrit
--
=^..^=

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [pcre] pcre-doc

Dave Korn
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:

>
> Then it would be better to not split the package in several parts.  I
> include all the docs and manuals in the main package e.g. with gcc or
> perl and with small packages I don't even think about splitting.  On the
> other hand my doc packages doesn't require anything and no package
> requires its doc package to be installed.
>

  Ah, but this package has a -devel.

  Some people might just want libpcre0 and pcre-docs.  Some might want the
executables too.  Some might just want the -devel and the -docs and entirely
install self-built libs and exes.

  So I can see the split as having at least some reasonableness to it.


    cheers,
      DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....