On 27 Mar 2008, at 09:56, Alexander K. Hansen wrote: > I've developed a bit of a pet peeve: packages having a BuildDepend > on doxygen > for doc generation. Having this dependency wouldn't matter so much > in a > mostly-binary situation, but we most definitely aren't there. It's > kind of > harsh to make a user install TeX via doxygen to generate docs that > don't even > require TeX at all. > > That being said, I'm not sure what I'd propose as a solution. I > haven't > looked into it, but perhaps a -notex variant of doxygen is > possible. That'd > relieve some of the burden, anyway.
I agree 100% with the concern about forcing users to build large packages if that can be avoided. But, rather than expending a bunch of effort on reworking the packages that create documents, wouldn't we get more benefit from the effort if it was focused on pushing our regular binaries? At least we should push out regular binary updates for the stable tree. And we should move packages to the stable tree more quickly. Or, what about pushing all documents that must be built to -docs packages, and making binaries of those available? I can understand the reluctance to officially recognize repositories of binaries of unstable packages, as Fink has no control over how they are built. But, what is the risk of accepting binaries of documents packages? The maintainers of -docs packages could be responsible for making binaries available for the official fink binary repository. -- Kevin Horton Ottawa, Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel
