| 1 |
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 09:32:46AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On pią, 2017-05-12 at 17:42 -0700, Daniel Campbell wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 05/11/2017 12:51 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > In fact, I'm personally leaning towards not building docs at all |
| 5 |
> > > in ebuilds. It's practically a wasted effort since most of the time |
| 6 |
> > > users read docs online anyway. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > I believe that's a little myopic; a user (or even developer) may not |
| 9 |
> > have Internet access all the time, or may not have it in their primary |
| 10 |
> > development environment. Having a copy of the docs locally (the entire |
| 11 |
> > point of USE="doc") is super valuable to have when you're away from the |
| 12 |
> > network. I'm sure I'm not alone as one of the people who uses the flag |
| 13 |
> > and appreciates the work that goes into making sure said flag works. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > Sure, we could yank out every single USE="doc", but then we lose a nice |
| 16 |
> > feature of the tree and users are back to either (a) trawling the Web to |
| 17 |
> > find the project site, then hope they have docs in a separate download, |
| 18 |
> > or (b) we end up with foo+1 packages, one extra for any package that has |
| 19 |
> > documentation. Neither are particularly good solutions; Debian has done |
| 20 |
> > the latter and it results in a huge number of packages for little gain. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> The Python team mostly focuses on providing packages for dependencies of |
| 23 |
> other Gentoo packages, not direct Python development. We do not have |
| 24 |
> the manpower to go above that. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> -- |
| 27 |
> Best regards, |
| 28 |
> Michał Górny |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Ah, well that at least explains why you're not interested in it. |
| 31 |
Dependency management alone can be tough; I've not noticed any Python |
| 32 |
issues, so it seems like you guys do well. :) If you don't mind me |
| 33 |
asking, what would it take to solve the USE="doc" issue to the Python |
| 34 |
team's standard? I have some personal interest in Python and wouldn't |
| 35 |
mind adding 'doc' support for Python packages that users request docs |
| 36 |
for. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Maybe others are willing to join me on this. Is that something we can |
| 39 |
make happen without getting in anyone's hair? |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
~zlg |
Archives