Re: [gentoo-dev] Should Sphinx really depends on PYTHON_COMPAT/PYTHON_USEDEP for `dev-python/*` ebuilds?

[Michał Górny]

Dnia 18 maja 2017 08:23:26 CEST, Alex Turbov <i.zaufi@×××××.com> napisał(a):
>As for me I'm doing few Python projects and as I said before I prefer
>to
>have (real) offline docs, cuz often visit places far from
>"civilization"
>and where 150Kib/s considered as pretty fast Internet connection. Also
>I'm
>very patient on keeping my Gentoo system under control and minimized
>(eliminating unnecessary dependencies and files). I could help with
>adding
>patches and bug reports for packages I use.

Please use pull requests. And focus on easy cases first. For the plugin case, I need to create the necessary logic in the eclass.

>
>On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o>
>wrote:
>
>> On śro, 2017-05-17 at 21:44 -0700, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>> > On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 09:32:46AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
>> > > On pią, 2017-05-12 at 17:42 -0700, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>> > > > On 05/11/2017 12:51 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> > > > > In fact, I'm personally leaning towards not building docs at
>all
>> > > > > in ebuilds. It's practically a wasted effort since most of
>the time
>> > > > > users read docs online anyway.
>> > > >
>> > > > I believe that's a little myopic; a user (or even developer)
>may not
>> > > > have Internet access all the time, or may not have it in their
>> primary
>> > > > development environment. Having a copy of the docs locally (the
>> entire
>> > > > point of USE="doc") is super valuable to have when you're away
>from
>> the
>> > > > network. I'm sure I'm not alone as one of the people who uses
>the
>> flag
>> > > > and appreciates the work that goes into making sure said flag
>works.
>> > > >
>> > > > Sure, we could yank out every single USE="doc", but then we
>lose a
>> nice
>> > > > feature of the tree and users are back to either (a) trawling
>the
>> Web to
>> > > > find the project site, then hope they have docs in a separate
>> download,
>> > > > or (b) we end up with foo+1 packages, one extra for any package
>that
>> has
>> > > > documentation. Neither are particularly good solutions; Debian
>has
>> done
>> > > > the latter and it results in a huge number of packages for
>little
>> gain.
>> > >
>> > > The Python team mostly focuses on providing packages for
>dependencies
>> of
>> > > other Gentoo packages, not direct Python development. We do not
>have
>> > > the manpower to go above that.
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Best regards,
>> > > Michał Górny
>> >
>> > Ah, well that at least explains why you're not interested in it.
>> > Dependency management alone can be tough; I've not noticed any
>Python
>> > issues, so it seems like you guys do well. :) If you don't mind me
>> > asking, what would it take to solve the USE="doc" issue to the
>Python
>> > team's standard? I have some personal interest in Python and
>wouldn't
>> > mind adding 'doc' support for Python packages that users request
>docs
>> > for.
>> >
>> > Maybe others are willing to join me on this. Is that something we
>can
>> > make happen without getting in anyone's hair?
>> >
>>
>> For a start, it'd be nice to figure all the stuff out in detail,
>> and document it -- when USEDEP is needed, not needed, when we need
>> something else (like the plugin case). Once that is done, it's just
>> a matter of checking and fixing existing packages, and being patient
>> with devs doing the same mistakes again ;-).
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Michał Górny
>>


-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny (by phone)