Re: Re: RC3 ...
От | The Hermit Hacker |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: RC3 ... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.BSF.4.33.0104062139530.81918-100000@mobile.hub.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: RC3 ... (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Re: RC3 ...
|
Список | 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?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: