[arch-dev-public] OMG info pages
dpmcgee at gmail.com
Tue Apr 22 18:06:43 EDT 2008
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Jan de Groot <jan at jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 12:05 -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> > I'm really really sick of people making mountains out of the docs
> > molehill... it's such a petty issue...
> > Would anyone honestly care if we removed the !docs option from
> > makepkg.conf by default, and let each maintainer add options=(!docs)
> > if the docs are too big for a given package?
> > No need to do the rebuilds all in one go, just let the docs trickle in...
> > Opinions anyone?
> What do we do with gtk-doc documentation? They're very useful when
> developing software, but they take a shitload of space compared to the
> libraries and include files shipped with a library like glib2. Before we
> stripped these docs, glib2 would take >50MB, now with stripped docs,
> it's 8-9MB in size.
> I always defended the removal of gtk-doc API documentation as "we don't
> ship docs by policy". If we change this policy, I have no serious
> defense against keeping these docs any longer, which means gtk-doc API
> documentation will get included, meaning a base package like glib2 will
> grow to 50MB again.
> Another option is to build them in standalone packages like we have with
> qt3-doc for example. AFAIK the latest versions of gtk-doc have makefile
> targets to build standalone documentation, but this means increase in
> workload and loss of KISS as we're splitting packages again.
This is one of those where you can still say "Enough is enough, I
don't want a 500% increase in package size when I include the docs, so
I'm not going to." Surely someone is willing to maintain a docs
package in community? (That is if you do not want to maintain one in
It is a lot harder to justify a 10K space savings for other packages,
but 40MB is a different story.
More information about the arch-dev-public