root-doc subpackage slightly obese

Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underwood at
Fri Aug 6 05:27:16 UTC 2010

On 5 August 2010 21:49, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at> 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?


More information about the devel mailing list