Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 13:18:02 +0000 (   )
From: "Gurunandan R. Bhat" <grbhat AT unigoa DOT ernet DOT in>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: A Suggestion.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970408141258.1046T-100000@is>
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970408130754.5236A-100000@aditya.unigoa.ernet.in>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII



On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> 
> On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Gurunandan R. Bhat wrote:
> 
> > 		i have a small suggestion for the consideration of this 
> > group: would it be possible to include the texinfo sources of the 
> > documentation of a package with the binaries.
> 
> I'm not sure if this is a good idea.  It will certainly make the
> binary zips larger (.texi files tend to be large), and thus punish the
> majority of users who don't print the docs.  

i agree. 

having said that, let me add that i did not express myself clearly the
first time. what i meant was that wherever possible, why dont we include
the texi files *in place of* the info files. with the texi file i can
generate the inf sources *and* the dvi file. i dont think that this would 
increase the size significantly. for example, flex.inf (which is included 
with the binaries) is 113567 whereas flex.texi is 112286. i haven't 
compared the relative sizes of texi v/s inf for other packages though. 


with warm regards
gurunandan