Pet Peeve - Damaging Other people's work deliberately

Nick Steeves nick.steeves at
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 
for myself.

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
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the CRUX mailing list