<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24/07/2022 16:26, Frank Mittelbach
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a6efca2b-d0e6-8d93-2987-5d9e3ae1e9f4@latex-project.org">It
is a pain in **** for developers if their work gets crippled and
then they get a lot of unnecessary questions and can't even point
to documentation, because it got dropped.
<br>
</blockquote>
Yes, I fully understand and accept that.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a6efca2b-d0e6-8d93-2987-5d9e3ae1e9f4@latex-project.org">
on the whole I'm with Markus that at least user documentation
should never be dropped from a distribution unless there are
overwhelming technical reasons. <br>
</blockquote>
<p>and I have no problem with that either. My <i>only</i> problem
is that (according to Markus, who must surely be authoritative in
this), "Providing KOMA-Script <i>for multiple users </i>without
documentation is illegal" [my stress]. Now Max is not multiple
users, he is one user; and if he does not allow others to use his
system, then the installer should allow him to install the
software <i>without</i> the accompanying documentation. Now it
may be that Markus is not at all concerned with what the installer
does or does not do — perhaps his concern is that, by definition,
TeX Live is created for <i>multiple users</i>; in which case I
would completely agree that TeX Live must include the KOMA-script
documentation if it includes KOMA-script at all. But then the <i>installer</i>
should ask, if Max (or anyone else) selects the global "no
documentation" option, "Are you installing this software for
multiple users ?". And if the answer is "yes", then the
documentation for packages such as KOMA-script must also be
installed.</p>
<p>-- <br>
<i>** Phil.</i><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>