release tarball sizes
jelmer at samba.org
Tue Oct 21 15:30:01 GMT 2003
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 06:21:34PM +0300, Alexander Bokovoy wrote about 'Re: release tarball sizes':
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 05:15:14PM +0200, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 09:43:16AM -0500, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote about 'Re: release tarball sizes':
> > > Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > > |>Save ~8Mb per download on a a release is pretty
> > > |>compelling to me.
> > > | Packaging the docs sounds ok to me (though I'd prefer to always have
> > > | the manpages in the source). Something that can always be left out of
> > > | the source package are imho:
> > > | - docbook sources (7.2M)
> > > | - developer documentation (PDF, docbook and HTML)
> > > The only thing that would really matter here is
> > > the docbook/ directory. Loosing that buts the
> > > gzipped version about 1.5Mb. Is there any
> > > compelling reason to leave it in? Patches?
> > > Unless someone speaks up, I will remove it from
> > > the next 3.0.x[preX] release.
> > I don't think there is a reason to leave the doc sources in.
> > Nobody sends us patches to the docbook source at the moment. Rather,
> > people send us comments and plain-text updates that we then put in ourselves.
> > Packagers should have enough clue to pull the sources from CVS imho.
> The point is that some distro have policy on relying on upstream-packaged
> sources (like Debian).
I'd be happy to provide a tarball of the doc sources at each release, if
anyone needs it.
Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at samba.org>
Bugs in bugzilla: 11
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20031021/ce592969/attachment.bin
More information about the samba-technical