Summary: | sys-apps/groff-1.22.2: man pages installed have an incorrect path names | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Dave Kemper <saint.snit> |
Component: | [OLD] Core system | Assignee: | Gentoo's Team for Core System packages <base-system> |
Status: | UNCONFIRMED --- | ||
Severity: | trivial | ||
Priority: | Low | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
Dave Kemper
2015-03-09 02:29:26 UTC
sorry, but i still don't see the point. most people don't care about this. the few that do can sort it out easily enough. disk size arguments are not compelling. if they were, we wouldn't compress anything doc related in the first place. the exact file name isn't really known either as the compression format is picked by the end user. we could change the docs so they have a glob: /usr/share/doc/groff-1.22.2/pic.ms* but again, i don't see it being worth the time. I still don't understand why there is controversy around whether documentation should be correct. If it were somehow difficult to fix, I suppose a case could be made for leaving it wrong, but as you say, a trailing * at the end of the affected pathnames is all it takes. Then cut and paste will work. Space issues aside, there should be logic behind choosing which file formats get compressed. This is why we have PORTAGE_COMPRESS_EXCLUDE_SUFFIXES. If .pdf is included in that list, why, logically, would .ps be excluded? These two formats serve essentially the same purpose and are often viewed using the same tools. What's the rationale for treating the two formats differently? I understand this is a minor bug. Gentoo's Bugzilla has a "minor" severity level, which I chose for this bug. It could realistically be downgraded to "trivial." If bugs are going to be dismissed merely because they're minor or trivial, why are these severities offered as options? I am not expecting nor suggesting anyone put aside work on higher priority bugs to fix this. (In reply to Dave Kemper from comment #2) because nothing is free. the cost of maintaining sed scripts to rewrite docs to support a case where you assume the user is stupid is not worth the effort. |