Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@...>
Subject: Re: RFC: deprecate /usr/share/doc/$PF
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 02:44:03 +0100
On Monday 19 of December 2011 02:52:54 Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 01:08 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > [Why are there different Reply-To: headers in -dev and in -pms MLs?
> > Following up to both lists.]
> 
> I apologize for the mess; I had intended to bring the question up before
> a wider audience, but failed to think through the consequences of two
> mailing lists ending up in the reply-to.
> 
> For the sake of keeping discussion in one thread, I ask that further
> replies should be made to gentoo-dev, not gentoo-pms.
> 
> > How do you handle FEATURES="nodoc" if you spread the documentation all
> > over the filesystem? Should Portage learn about all the special cases?
> > IMHO it would make more sense to leave the documentation under
> > /usr/share/doc and either configure the documentation viewer to find
> > it there, or (if that's not possible) create symlinks.
> 
> It's not "all over the filesystem"; in practice, the number of locations
> I believe is fairly small (/usr/share/gtk-doc and /usr/lib/monodoc for
> API documentation, and /usr/share/help, /usr/share/omf,
> and /usr/share/doc/HTML for end-user help files are the only ones that I
> know of), and adding them to portage's nodoc list seems much easier than
> editing hundreds of ebuilds that already install docs there.
> 
> Documentation in Gentoo-specific /usr/share/doc subdirectories would not
> be able to link to documentation pages in other packages without
> fragile, hard-to-maintain scripts - and even with the best scripts,
> things would break on package renames. Symlinks could work, but (if the
> nodoc situation is resolved) would give package maintainers extra work
> for no real benefit.
> 
> > Can we please avoid the bloat of another directory level here?
> > ${CATEGORY}/${PN} will be even longer than ${PF} in most cases.
> 
> The problem is that ($PN, $CATEGORY) pairs are not unique.

I still think we should even make PN an unique identifier in order to be able 
to purge categories... that's different story though...

-- 
regards
MM
Attachment:
signature.asc (This is a digitally signed message part.)
Replies:
Re: RFC: deprecate /usr/share/doc/$PF
-- Mike Frysinger
References:
RFC: deprecate /usr/share/doc/$PF
-- Alexandre Rostovtsev
Re: RFC: deprecate /usr/share/doc/$PF
-- Ulrich Mueller
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: RFC: deprecate /usr/share/doc/$PF
Next by thread:
Re: RFC: deprecate /usr/share/doc/$PF
Previous by date:
Re: Six month major project on Gentoo
Next by date:
Re: RFC: deprecate /usr/share/doc/$PF


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.