Mark Davies <mark%ecs.vuw.ac.nz@localhost> writes: > I've been wondering about how we handle the texlive doc packages. > > Currently we do them as separate packages: for a tex-foo package > we have a separate tex-foo-doc package to deal with the foo.doc > tarball. > > I wonder if we should keep them as separate packages or role them into > the base package (possibly with a variable to control inclusion). I think that they should either stay as is or have doc included with packages only, with no possibilit to exclude it. Basically I view the existence of any particular option as a bug (but the options framework I do not view that way), because options don't work for binary packages. I would ask: how much hassle is it to have doc packages how many users want the doc packages how many actively don't want docs what extra dependencies would be added to a typical install? To a minimal use texlive install? how much space do the docs take?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature