On 18 Apr 2016 17:08, walter harms wrote: > Am 18.04.2016 16:49, schrieb Mike Frysinger: > > On 16 Apr 2016 18:30, Alexander Miller wrote: > >> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 00:50:58 -0400 > >> Mike Frysinger <vapier@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> if no one > >>> is using this code, then it's just sucking up space. > >> > >> I'm not concerned about the space, but code needs to be maintained. > >> IMO, as long as it works, we can keep it; if it has issues we'd > >> better remove it. > > > > sorry for the ambigious term ... i'm not referring to disk space, but > > to the code "sucking up space in the Makefiles and our eyes". > > > >> We can drop compression support or do it right - I'm fine with > >> either option. We shouldn't keep the status quo, though. > > > > i'm not advocating for the status quo ;) > > as one of those people that like to have it directly from source ... > > I would advocate for having just one compression type .gz would be ok. > space i nowadays not the main concern but it is convinced to have. in my experience, the majority of packages nowadays don't try to "help" you out and automatically compress installed man pages. so why should man-pages do it ? you already either (1) have a custom solution or (2) have uncompressed pages installed. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
