[arch-dev-public] OMG info pages
travis at archlinux.org
Wed Apr 23 11:30:04 EDT 2008
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:06 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> Here's another option - we could remove the info dirs from the
> DOC_DIRs setting in makepkg.conf, leaving only the gtk-doc dirs.
> Either that or the way I suggested above (gtk-doc packages just add
> !docs to the package options).
> What do you guys think?
I think we should remove doc-stripping on a global basis, and those
packages that still want to strip their docs should explicitly say so.
Seems the most 'vanilla' solution to me.
More information about the arch-dev-public