Pet Peeve - Damaging Other people's work deliberately
nick.steeves at shaw.ca
Fri Mar 10 10:16:06 UTC 2006
On Thursday 09 March 2006 3:07, Alan Mizrahi wrote:
> I completely agree with you, in the particular case of KDE. Without the
> helpfiles you can't even install other languages.
> This means that if you want other languages, you have to rebuild kdelibs!
I know exactly what you mean. :-) Honestly, I have to build kdelibs twice,
every time I update CRUX's KDE packages: once for the public copy, and once
On Thursday 09 March 2006 12:55, Mark Rosenstand wrote:
> If documentation is nicely integrated with the application, as it's the
> case with KDE, it isn't junk in my world either. Could we get a comment
> (and maybe even action) from the KDE maintainer/packager? :-)
I've been considering how to breach to topic of the creation of /usr/share/doc
for some time, and am actually kind of glad that it has become a community
issue, and not just a personal inconvenience.
Speaking of stripping documentation: am I the only one who has noticed that
OpenOffice is not stripped of its documentation? Is this because the
documentation is stored someplace "out of the
way" (/usr/lib/openoffice/help)? To my knowledge, kde cannot simply
be ./configur'ed to change /usr/share/doc to /usr/lib/kde3/doc, so it looks
like a big "allow or disallow /usr/share/doc" decision.
Though back to the topic of KDE-related documentation:
Would only core KDE stuff be permitted to install documentation, or would all
KDE software be able to? For example, does anyone need/want amaroK's
documentation? KOffice's? Smb4k's? BasKet?
I'm certainly for allowing core KDE stuff to install documentation. If the
CLC likes the idea, I'll commit the changes.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the CRUX