Eric Bavier <ericbav...@openmailbox.org> skribis: > On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 23:11:07 +0100 > l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) wrote: > >> Eric Bavier <ericbav...@openmailbox.org> skribis: >> >> > +(define (unison-doc ext version hash) >> > + (origin >> > + (method url-fetch) >> > + (uri (string-append "https://www.seas.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/unison/"; >> > + "download/releases/unison-" version "/unison-" >> > + version "-manual." ext)) >> > + (sha256 (base32 hash)))) >> >> [...] >> >> > + `(("doc-pdf" >> > + ,(unison-doc "pdf" version >> > + >> > "0y5mywjn352nw4wqli94gnc5vn1f72g56jqqk1nqajz0ark998nb")) >> > + ("doc-ps" >> > + ,(unison-doc "ps" version >> > + >> > "11awy1xxhmckwnx42hllmngmx8q4ck18vpwpgfqqhj0x8vx0b3ha")) >> > + ("doc-html" >> > + ,(unison-doc "html" version >> > + >> > "06myrpv067j5ffm265fm0a83gm41j9bv3ps3yiyb1hqgfy1qy3ah")))) >> >> Could we instead build them from source? > > Possibly. The documentation source is not available in the download > tarball, only in the developer svn repository, so we could do an svn > fetch of that. Would that be alright?
Sure. >> I understand that building the PDF/PS would require an extra dependency >> on TeX Live. This could be: >> >> 1. ignored, on the grounds that people with substitutes enabled will >> not have to download TeX Live; or: >> >> 2. addressed by having only the HTML documentation built, on the >> grounds the HTML is more appropriate for on-screen reading. >> >> WDYT? > > Option 1 might be fine. The 'coq' package also requires both texlive > and hevea for its documentation. OK! Ludo’.
