[arch-dev-public] OMG info pages

[Dan McGee]

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Travis Willard <travis at archlinux.org> wrote:
>
> 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.

makepkg really shouldn't be tailored to Arch, I've tried to get away
from that. I'd like to put sane defaults there (don't strip docs, but
define DOC_DIRS as all relevant doc directories), and let either the
PKGBUILD of pacman or the individual developers make any further
customizations.

-Dan