[arch-dev-public] OMG info pages

[Travis Willard]

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.