1 |
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 23:56:33 -0400 |
2 |
desultory <desultory@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Since when is anyone proposing extirpating man pages on the whole? I am |
5 |
> simply making the rather simple suggestion that pulling in more packages |
6 |
> to support presently optional documentation as newly mandated |
7 |
> documentation when such documentation is neither expected nor desired by |
8 |
> the users of systems onto which it would be installed is not a net |
9 |
> benefit to anyone. |
10 |
|
11 |
Mostly because all things that provide texinfo files have to depend on |
12 |
texinfo, and use texinfo tools to compile their info files. |
13 |
|
14 |
And because presently, the required ubiquitous dependency is causing |
15 |
problems, due to the dependency graph going pear shaped. ( though we |
16 |
maaay have solved that, its hard to tell, we worked around it with |
17 |
bundled deps ... ) |
18 |
|
19 |
This leads to a situation where anything that uses texinfo, *may* want |
20 |
to provide a way to remove that dependency conditionally to avoid |
21 |
suffering, and it is reasonable to imagine somebody doing this. |
22 |
|
23 |
And this is already being done with a USE flag in many packages[1] |
24 |
|
25 |
But, policy as proposed makes the only way to do this to pre-build |
26 |
texinfo files yourself and hand-ship them. |
27 |
|
28 |
Which is amusing, because the info situation is unlike man in one |
29 |
specific way: That the majority of users probably don't want them. |
30 |
|
31 |
Yet, all the packages without a USE gating is making these users suffer |
32 |
problems in portage upgrades. |
33 |
|
34 |
Making developers hand-bundle prebuilt info files instead of depending |
35 |
on texinfo with a use flag? |
36 |
|
37 |
I think you'll just see more people actually opt to solve the |
38 |
dependency problem by nuking the texinfo generation of build cycle |
39 |
entirely, and hoping nobody notices. |
40 |
|
41 |
And unlike USE-gated dependencies that can yelled at by QA using simple |
42 |
static analysis tools, QA yelling at people for nuking man pages might |
43 |
be a little harder to implement tools for. ( But FTR, I don't |
44 |
personally care if texinfo gets shot in the process, it is nothing but |
45 |
pain for me ) |
46 |
|
47 |
> Even default on USE flags would be a better "fix" for |
48 |
> the purported problem then making maintainers generate, package, and |
49 |
> publish man pages themselves. |
50 |
|
51 |
On that I *kinda* agree, I think? But the reason they're not defaulting |
52 |
on, is because the complexity it creates can cause breakage, and for |
53 |
every 1 user that wants to read a man page, there are 10 who just need |
54 |
the program (or library) to just F-ing install already[2] so they can |
55 |
go back to focusing on the thing that they actually care about. |
56 |
|
57 |
So "generate man pages and make installs break for lots of people" is a |
58 |
bad default. |
59 |
|
60 |
1: https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/genrdeps/dindex/sys-apps/texinfo |
61 |
2: Lest there be confusion, this is not my rhetoric, this is just me |
62 |
channelling the average user who has to ask for help in #gentoo yet |
63 |
again to solve a problem that has had to be solved many dozens of times |
64 |
over, who is not a deity of package management quirks and struggles to |
65 |
make sense of portage errors or comprehend random build failures due to |
66 |
bad build-ordering. Sometimes gentoo is barely usable for even lesser |
67 |
deities, and we aught to be doing more to put the power in the users |
68 |
hands to make this crap just stop. |