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
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
