| 1 |
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:43:17 -0700, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." |
| 2 |
<phajdan.jr@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On 7/13/10 12:32 PM, Jeremy Olexa wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 19:25:51 +0000 (UTC), "Kacper Kowalik (xarthisius)" |
| 5 |
>> <xarthisius@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>>> if use doc; then |
| 8 |
>>> insinto /usr/share/doc/${PF} |
| 9 |
>>> doins doc/*.pdf || die |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> An open question to all: |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> Should we be hiding pdf's behind USE=doc?? I've seen it here and there |
| 14 |
>> as of late. I thought USE=doc was for compiling docs and/or pulling in |
| 15 |
>> extra deps to build docs. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> In my opinion we're never going to have 100% consistency here. I'd say |
| 18 |
> let everybody implement it in a way one thinks is the best. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I will highly disagree with this statement. If *WE* are not consistent, |
| 21 |
how do the users of the distro know what to expect? Why does this USE |
| 22 |
flag have a different standard then the rest? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> The description of the flag is "Adds extra documentation (API, Javadoc, |
| 25 |
> etc)". So if something is an extra documentation, it seems to be fine to |
| 26 |
> "hide" it behind USE=doc. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> And I'd prefer to keep the meaning of "extra documentation" flexible and |
| 29 |
> open to interpretation, just because there is no obvious benefit to aim |
| 30 |
> for 100% consistency here, and overstandardization would be bad. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
No obvious benefit besides being consistent to our userbase. Do our |
| 33 |
users expect non-consistent USE flags? That sounds bad to me. Sadly, I |
| 34 |
think this is a subject that we will never get a consensus on. Maybe |
| 35 |
the |
| 36 |
description should be changed to: |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
global:doc: Adds extra documentation (API, Javadoc, PDFs at |
| 39 |
maintainer's discretion, etc) |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-Jeremy |
Archives