| 1 |
Daniel Campbell wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 05/11/2017 12:51 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
>> In fact, I'm personally leaning towards not building docs at all |
| 4 |
>> in ebuilds. It's practically a wasted effort since most of the time |
| 5 |
>> users read docs online anyway. |
| 6 |
> I believe that's a little myopic; a user (or even developer) may not |
| 7 |
> have Internet access all the time, or may not have it in their primary |
| 8 |
> development environment. Having a copy of the docs locally (the entire |
| 9 |
> point of USE="doc") is super valuable to have when you're away from the |
| 10 |
> network. I'm sure I'm not alone as one of the people who uses the flag |
| 11 |
> and appreciates the work that goes into making sure said flag works. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Sure, we could yank out every single USE="doc", but then we lose a nice |
| 14 |
> feature of the tree and users are back to either (a) trawling the Web to |
| 15 |
> find the project site, then hope they have docs in a separate download, |
| 16 |
> or (b) we end up with foo+1 packages, one extra for any package that has |
| 17 |
> documentation. Neither are particularly good solutions; Debian has done |
| 18 |
> the latter and it results in a huge number of packages for little gain. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
As a long term user, I always look at the docs first. One reason, the |
| 21 |
docs should match the version I have installed. If a package has |
| 22 |
changed recently, the online docs become version dependent which makes |
| 23 |
it harder to find online. I've actually ran into that before when I'm |
| 24 |
googling trying to get something to work to only find out that the way |
| 25 |
things are set up has changed and no longer applies to what I have |
| 26 |
installed. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Having the docs included when available should be required. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Dale |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
:-) :-) |
Archives