On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:06 PM, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > > Here's another option - we could remove the info dirs from the > DOC_DIRs setting in makepkg.conf, leaving only the gtk-doc dirs. > Either that or the way I suggested above (gtk-doc packages just add > !docs to the package options). > > What do you guys think?
I think we should remove doc-stripping on a global basis, and those packages that still want to strip their docs should explicitly say so. Seems the most 'vanilla' solution to me.
