[arch-dev-public] OMG info pages

[Dan McGee]

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
extra).

It is a lot harder to justify a 10K space savings for other packages,
but 40MB is a different story.

-Dan