| 1 |
As for me I'm doing few Python projects and as I said before I prefer to |
| 2 |
have (real) offline docs, cuz often visit places far from "civilization" |
| 3 |
and where 150Kib/s considered as pretty fast Internet connection. Also I'm |
| 4 |
very patient on keeping my Gentoo system under control and minimized |
| 5 |
(eliminating unnecessary dependencies and files). I could help with adding |
| 6 |
patches and bug reports for packages I use. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> On śro, 2017-05-17 at 21:44 -0700, Daniel Campbell wrote: |
| 11 |
> > On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 09:32:46AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 12 |
> > > On pią, 2017-05-12 at 17:42 -0700, Daniel Campbell wrote: |
| 13 |
> > > > On 05/11/2017 12:51 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 14 |
> > > > > In fact, I'm personally leaning towards not building docs at all |
| 15 |
> > > > > in ebuilds. It's practically a wasted effort since most of the time |
| 16 |
> > > > > users read docs online anyway. |
| 17 |
> > > > |
| 18 |
> > > > I believe that's a little myopic; a user (or even developer) may not |
| 19 |
> > > > have Internet access all the time, or may not have it in their |
| 20 |
> primary |
| 21 |
> > > > development environment. Having a copy of the docs locally (the |
| 22 |
> entire |
| 23 |
> > > > point of USE="doc") is super valuable to have when you're away from |
| 24 |
> the |
| 25 |
> > > > network. I'm sure I'm not alone as one of the people who uses the |
| 26 |
> flag |
| 27 |
> > > > and appreciates the work that goes into making sure said flag works. |
| 28 |
> > > > |
| 29 |
> > > > Sure, we could yank out every single USE="doc", but then we lose a |
| 30 |
> nice |
| 31 |
> > > > feature of the tree and users are back to either (a) trawling the |
| 32 |
> Web to |
| 33 |
> > > > find the project site, then hope they have docs in a separate |
| 34 |
> download, |
| 35 |
> > > > or (b) we end up with foo+1 packages, one extra for any package that |
| 36 |
> has |
| 37 |
> > > > documentation. Neither are particularly good solutions; Debian has |
| 38 |
> done |
| 39 |
> > > > the latter and it results in a huge number of packages for little |
| 40 |
> gain. |
| 41 |
> > > |
| 42 |
> > > The Python team mostly focuses on providing packages for dependencies |
| 43 |
> of |
| 44 |
> > > other Gentoo packages, not direct Python development. We do not have |
| 45 |
> > > the manpower to go above that. |
| 46 |
> > > |
| 47 |
> > > -- |
| 48 |
> > > Best regards, |
| 49 |
> > > Michał Górny |
| 50 |
> > |
| 51 |
> > Ah, well that at least explains why you're not interested in it. |
| 52 |
> > Dependency management alone can be tough; I've not noticed any Python |
| 53 |
> > issues, so it seems like you guys do well. :) If you don't mind me |
| 54 |
> > asking, what would it take to solve the USE="doc" issue to the Python |
| 55 |
> > team's standard? I have some personal interest in Python and wouldn't |
| 56 |
> > mind adding 'doc' support for Python packages that users request docs |
| 57 |
> > for. |
| 58 |
> > |
| 59 |
> > Maybe others are willing to join me on this. Is that something we can |
| 60 |
> > make happen without getting in anyone's hair? |
| 61 |
> > |
| 62 |
> |
| 63 |
> For a start, it'd be nice to figure all the stuff out in detail, |
| 64 |
> and document it -- when USEDEP is needed, not needed, when we need |
| 65 |
> something else (like the plugin case). Once that is done, it's just |
| 66 |
> a matter of checking and fixing existing packages, and being patient |
| 67 |
> with devs doing the same mistakes again ;-). |
| 68 |
> |
| 69 |
> -- |
| 70 |
> Best regards, |
| 71 |
> Michał Górny |
| 72 |
> |
Archives