Re: [gentoo-catalyst] Migrating man page to asciidoc?

[Matt Turner]

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 1:33 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:44:55AM -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Sebastian Pipping <sping@g.o> wrote:
>> >> * Now we need to have a build time dependency, at least for the live
>> >> ebuild, which pulls in about 34mb of downloads just to build the man
>> >> page.
>> >>
>> >> Since we are just talking about a man page, imho this is a lot of bloat
>> >> for very little gain.
>> >
>> > I disagree on bloat and on little gain.
>> >
>> > If you insist on changing status quo I would like to call in a vote.
>>
>> Well, in fairness, the asciidoc dependency was just added a day or so ago.
>
> Yes, it was added a couple of days ago, without giving a reasonable
> amount of time for discussion.

He got a single response from a Gentoo developer which is infinitely
more discussion than a large number of posts on this list receive.

Even there, the post said

> For me if man page was not touched since 2005 means that it's completely
> unmaintained and thus since you are interested in maintaining - just go
> ahead!

This really is applicable to catalyst too. It'd been almost entirely
unmaintained, less trivial changes, for quite sometime.

> I'll post the links to the rfc [1], the approval message [2] and the
> message where the change was checked in [3] below. Notice that this all
> happened within a period less than 24 hours.
>
> For a significant change like this, I
> think we should give 24-48 hours and make the patch visible somewhere so
> that others can look at the change and comment on it before it gets
> checked in. Remember that we have people here in multiple time zones,
> and we don't necessarily check these lists every day.
>
> Based on this as well as my previous objections I would like to see this
> change reverted.
>
> William
>
> [1] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-catalyst/msg_78cd6eae401bfa7a499418bc6cbc225e.xml
> [2] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-catalyst/msg_65f2fce710454e481973d0e2c6cc5265.xml
> [3] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-catalyst/msg_f2eb026c4c4af90650952ca81a5fd6b6.xml

Let's not go down this route. This seems like much ado about nothing.

I claim that
(1) app-text/asciidoc and its dependencies are not unreasonable for
catalyst-9999
(2) app-text/asciidoc and its dependencies should be avoided for
catalyst snapshots/releases
(3) we can simply modify the timestamp of the generated files to be
that of the most recent commit that `git archive` has access to,
thereby allowing us to reproduce identical tarballs
(4) checking in generated content into git is dirty. We should not do this

Do you disagree with any of these points, and if so, which?

Matt