1 |
On L, 2007-06-23 at 15:57 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 17:45:02 +0300 |
3 |
> Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> > > The doc use flag is used where there is a reason to make |
5 |
> > > documentation optional rather than mandatory. Examples of such |
6 |
> > > reasons include increased dependencies (e.g. Doxygen, which pulls |
7 |
> > > in a fair bit), |
8 |
|
9 |
Rebuilding of gtk-doc driven documentation means a gtk-doc dep and in |
10 |
turn a big bunch of xslt and xml and other doc building stuff. |
11 |
|
12 |
> increased build time (e.g. Doxygen, which can be |
13 |
> > > frickin' slow) |
14 |
|
15 |
gtk+ documentation rebuilding can take as much as 30 to 60 minutes with |
16 |
the doc USE flag for example. The benefit is cross references to glib, |
17 |
pango and cairo documentation - upstream can not do that as they do not |
18 |
know where the other docs will be found on disk. Though I should see if |
19 |
they can not use relative paths somehow.. |
20 |
On the other hand the release tarballs already include a prebuilt |
21 |
documentation, that is mostly API docs, but also chapters like 'running |
22 |
gtk+ applications' |
23 |
|
24 |
> or substantially increased disk usage. |
25 |
|
26 |
$ du -hs /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/ |
27 |
72M /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/ |
28 |
|
29 |
$ ls /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/ |wc -l |
30 |
76 |
31 |
|
32 |
Less than a megabyte per package in average. |
33 |
|
34 |
gtk+ and pygtk docs are over 10MB and might warrant a reconsideration of |
35 |
doc installation, but the rest are all less than 3MB, mostly less than a |
36 |
megabyte and 675KB in average. |
37 |
I would say there is no reason to not install documentation for other |
38 |
packages than gtk+ and pygtk. |
39 |
Even if gtk+ and pygtk docs are always installed it's not very bad. |
40 |
|
41 |
> If there's no |
42 |
> > > substantial cost to documentation, it should always be installed |
43 |
|
44 |
As dang pointed out further on IRC, doc USE flag also takes care of not |
45 |
depending on a big bunch of extra dependencies. |
46 |
Additionally the doc USE flag means 'extra' documentation in the sense |
47 |
of extra value for the docs. It also means substantially longer build |
48 |
times with the doc USE flag, which seems to be often the practice of |
49 |
when the doc USE flag is used by a package - substantial time cost. |
50 |
|
51 |
> > |
52 |
> > Yep but we should for example document what constitues increased disk |
53 |
> > usage. How about "several megabytes or tens of files"? |
54 |
> |
55 |
> It's a package dependent quantity, and should be left up to individual |
56 |
> maintainers. Vim's documentation, for example, is a lot of files and a |
57 |
> lot of disk space, but it isn't shipped via USE="doc" because it's |
58 |
> considered by upstream to be a vital part of the package. |
59 |
|
60 |
|
61 |
Regarding ungeneralizing the doc USE flag: |
62 |
For gnome that would probably mean just using apidoc instead of doc |
63 |
across the board, as it is taken care of by the eclass right now for all |
64 |
gnome packages, plus gtk-doc docs are almost all for API docs. |
65 |
If we need to make doc installation optional, it will mean another extra |
66 |
USE flag for all gnome packages, as I see it as some want to rebuild the |
67 |
docs, and some do not see the extra value to outweight the much bigger |
68 |
build times. |
69 |
|
70 |
What if we made the biggest docs optional but keep all the remaining |
71 |
gtk-docs installed always, filterable by INSTALL_MASK, as they are |
72 |
typically less than a megabyte? |
73 |
Though a gentoo-wide ungeneralizing of doc USE flag doesn't sound bad |
74 |
indeed. |
75 |
|
76 |
|
77 |
-- |
78 |
Mart Raudsepp |
79 |
Gentoo Developer |
80 |
Mail: leio@g.o |
81 |
Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio |