Re: documentation for packages

[Aleksey Cheusov <cheusov%tut.by@localhost>]

 >> implement. But you proposed to make "rule of thumb".  Personally, I
 >> don't think such a rule is a good idea. It adds huge amount of extrawork
 >> without significant benefits.

> I disagree. I would consider a separate "doc" package in case of tools
> needed to build the documentation like TeX a very huge benefit, and I also
> would consider completeley dropping the documenation in such cases, or
> committing pre-generated, easily accessible results.

> This can cut the "rebuild all packages" time on your pkg build server quite
> seriously (in my own setups I end up with less then 300 pkgs installed on
> pkg build machine).

I think reducing build time is a completely different problem. There is
no any reason to rebuild all dependent packages recursively if package
producing pdf or ps were changed unless explicit >=x.y.z is specified in
BUILD_DEPENDS. Recursive rebuild is only required for library
dependencies when API or ABI versions bumped.

-- 
Best regards, Aleksey Cheusov.