Re: Re: RC3 ...
Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org>
From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>, <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com>, <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2001-04-07T00:40:50Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Tom Lane wrote: > >> At 2Meg, is there a reason why we include any of the docs as part of the > >> standard tar ball? It shouldn't be required to compile, so should be able > >> to be left out of the main tar ball and downloaded seperately as required > >> .. thereby shrinking the distribution to <6Meg from its current 8 ... > > > Can we drop TODO.detail from the tarball too? No need to include that, > > I think. The web site has nice links to it now. Uncompressed it is > > 1.314 megs. > > That strikes me as an awfully web-centric view of things. Not everyone > has an always-on high-speed Internet link. > > If you want to make the docs and TODO.detail be a separate chunk of the > split distribution, that's fine with me. But I don't agree with > removing them from the full tarball. > > OTOH, if Marc was only thinking of removing the pre-built docs from the > tarball, I don't object to that. I'm not sure why those weren't > distributed as separate tarballs from the get-go. I just say that the > doc sources are part of the source distribution... But, why? That sounds like a highly DSL-centric view of things *grin* If someone really wants docs, what hurts a second GET ftp call?