7. Should I distribute source
and/or already formatted documentation?
Let me give the pros (+) and cons (-) of a few selected
possibilities:
Source only:+ smaller distribution package.- inaccessible on
systems without groff.
Uncompressed formatted only:+ accessible even on systems
without groff.- the user can't generate a
dvi or postscript file.- waste of disk space on systems that also
handle compressed pages.
Compressed formatted only:+ accessible even on systems
without groff.- the user can't generate a
dvi or postscript file.- which compression format would you use?
.Z? .z? .gz? All of them?
Source and uncompressed formatted:+ accessible even on
systems without groff.- larger distribution
package- some systems may expect compressed formatted man pages.-
redundant information on systems equipped with
groff.
IMHO it is best to distribute source only. The argument that
it's inaccessible on systems without groff
does not matter. The 500+ man pages of the Linux Documentation
Project are source only. The man pages of XFree86 are source only.
The man pages from the FSF are source only. In fact, I have rarely
seen software distributed with formatted man pages. If any sysadmin
is really concerned about having man pages accessible then he also
has groff installed.