Dnia 18 maja 2017 08:23:26 CEST, Alex Turbov <i.za...@gmail.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 <mgo...@gentoo.org> >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)
