On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Jan de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 12:05 -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote: > > I'm really really sick of people making mountains out of the docs > > molehill... it's such a petty issue... > > > > Would anyone honestly care if we removed the !docs option from > > makepkg.conf by default, and let each maintainer add options=(!docs) > > if the docs are too big for a given package? > > > > No need to do the rebuilds all in one go, just let the docs trickle in... > > > > Opinions anyone? > > What do we do with gtk-doc documentation? They're very useful when > developing software, but they take a shitload of space compared to the > libraries and include files shipped with a library like glib2. Before we > stripped these docs, glib2 would take >50MB, now with stripped docs, > it's 8-9MB in size. > I always defended the removal of gtk-doc API documentation as "we don't > ship docs by policy". If we change this policy, I have no serious > defense against keeping these docs any longer, which means gtk-doc API > documentation will get included, meaning a base package like glib2 will > grow to 50MB again. > Another option is to build them in standalone packages like we have with > qt3-doc for example. AFAIK the latest versions of gtk-doc have makefile > targets to build standalone documentation, but this means increase in > workload and loss of KISS as we're splitting packages again.
This is one of those where you can still say "Enough is enough, I don't want a 500% increase in package size when I include the docs, so I'm not going to." Surely someone is willing to maintain a docs package in community? (That is if you do not want to maintain one in extra). It is a lot harder to justify a 10K space savings for other packages, but 40MB is a different story. -Dan
