Re: "doc" option

[Thomas Adam <thomas%xteddy.org@localhost>]

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 06:29:10PM +0300, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
> Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost> writes:
> 
> > Aleksej Saushev <asau%inbox.ru@localhost> writes:
> >
> >> Unless anyone objects in a week, I'll start adding "doc" option to packages
> >> I'm interested to be stripped of installed documentation. First positions
> >> in the queue are occupied by modular X.org packages. I'm not going to 
> >> change
> >> current state, default will be to install documentation.
> >
> > so doc option is in PKG_SUGGESTED_OPTIONS, and
> >   PKG_DEFAULT_OPTIONS+=             -doc
> > will cause all of the not to a) build/install docs and b) depend on
> > documentation tools?
> 
> Yes, where it is possible and easily approachable I'll try to avoid
> building documentation as well.
> 
> >> If you have better ideas on how not to install documentation, speak up.
> >> (One of alternatives is making packages obey NOMAN or NO_MAN setting.)
> >
> > pkgsrc is more than NetBSD, so hooking into BSD base system mk.conf
> > seems to be asking for nonportable trouble.
> >
> > I suppose we could make NOMAN force the above default options, but I
> > have a mild preference not to go there - I think it will lead to enough
> > questions due to mysteriousness that it would be a net time cost for the
> > community.
> 
> (I meant MKMAN as described in /usr/share/mk/bsd.README of course.)
> 
> I had no strong preference before your mail, now I see that having it as
> an option makes the support more visible.
> 
> Another alternative is splitting documentation into separate packages
> the Debian way, but I find it requiring more efforts from developers.
> I don't think that it pays off.

Hmm, I don't think splitting it would be a good idea -- just in terms of the
amount of work that would be required.

Maybe we should be negating this idea slightly -- that is -- flag up those
packages where the overhead of compiling them for documentaton outweighs the
actual program, and add that to the package's README, or something?

Or -- given the necessary Makefile target, one could instruct *only*
building documentation if it were supported -- such that if I deliberately
told a given package not to build documentation, compiled and installed it,
but I thought later on:  "Hmm, I need the documentation", I can do:

cd /usr/pkgsrc/foo/bar-pkg-with-docs/make doc install

... or something like that (feel free to shed paint the target name.  :P).
This might also then pave the way for packages to *never* compile up
documentation if it was felt a problem -- and if it were to be disabled by
default, a warning like we do now for "ACCEPTIBLE_LICENSES" might be in
order.

But I agree that would be quite a lot of work, and change things.   Hmm,
change -- ISTR no one here like that.  :)

-- Thomas Adam

-- 
"Deep in my heart I wish I was wrong.  But deep in my heart I know I am
not." -- Morrissey ("Girl Least Likely To" -- off of Viva Hate.)