On 5 August 2010 21:49, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Yaah -- so if it's useful documentation, then I'd be against creating a rule > that bans it. The next question would be whether it's useful or not.... > Public vs private certainly sounds like one thing to look at. However, some > libraries might want to ship information about their private interfaces for > people who want to help hack on the library so it's not a 100% thing that > I'd want to enforce with a Guideline.... > > Perhaps in these two specific cases it would be best to open bugs for the > maintainers to look at whether some of the documentation in here isn't > considered useful and could be left out. I have to agree with Toshio here - it would be a bad move to be banning sub-packaged docs. In the case of root I can say that the root docs sub-package is very useful. The problem here really isn't the documentation sub-package size itself, but rather what it does to the size of filelists.xml.gz. And the size of filelists.xml.gz seems to come up periodically, so I wonder if it's worth asking what can be done about that, if anything. Do documentation files really need to be included in file level dependency generation/resolution? Jonathan -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
