On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 08:34:10PM -0400, salew...@att.net wrote: > Hi Folks, > > Is it intentional that 'ri' documentation is not provided for ruby-foo > packages? If so, what is the rationale?
I often use ri for getting help about core classes, and wholehartly agree that it would be nice to have it for all Ruby packages. To be honest, I think we don't build docs just because that made building faster and less prone to fail. However, we could change that, and all that is needed is someone willing to do the work necessary to make it happen. I can see two ways this could go: 1) make gem2deb able to build documentation. Regardless of whether we make this off or on by default, we would need to rebuild all 1000+ Ruby packages to get this support for the entire archive. pros: - docs are always there cons: - needs to rebuild all Ruby packages - some packages might fail to build due to issues in the documentation - packages get bigger, even if you don't need the docs (e.g. servers) 2) provide a new, optional package that builds documentation on the fly as packages are installed/upgraded. pros: - none of the cons of 1) cons: - requires writing this tool. I think rubygems itself should already provide most of the bits for building the documentation itself, but some glue code will be needed. IMO 2) is less disruptive and an interesting challenge to work on, and I would be willing to mentor someone who wants to work on it.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
