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?

~zlg

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to