On Fri, 22 Jul 2011, Ahmad Samir wrote:
ATM gtk-doc requires dblatex which requires texlive -> texlive-texmf;
due to the outrageous size of texlive-texmf, building packages in
local chroots becomes a bit of pain/burden on my HDD, also each of
texlive and xmltex have I/O intensive postinstall scriptlets.
The best solution for that may be to put the chroot in a tmpfs.
I see the texlive-texmf issue is being discussed in another thread so
I'll keep this one about gtk-doc; here're a couple of points:
Too bad since this appears to be strongly related to the gtk-doc issue you
mention. I mean, providing a minimal set of texlive packages may fix this
gtk-doc problem.
- Some packages have BR gtk-doc but it's redundant:
o They don't have --enable-gtk-doc passed to ./configure, which
means that BR isn't used at all
o Most of those packages already bundle html gtk-doc's; is there any
benefit rebuilding those docs when building the package? or should the
gtk-doc BR get dropped in such cases (since no one complained about
those html docs all those years)?
In general I think it's best to generate everything from original sources
[1]. It makes sure all build scripts/code/documentation is generated using
the tools in the distro which may be newer and/or have patches compared to
the tools used to generate the files shipped with the source code. It also
ensures we can support such packages, because when someone reports a bug
in a generated file we should never patch that file directly but its
source.
- I am thinking of splitting gtk-doc itself, putting gtkdoc-mkpdf in a
separate sub-package which will require dblatex:
o AFAICS dblatex is only used for creating PDF's from XML sources,
so only useful for gtkdoc-mkpdf
Interesting.
o This will result in less HDD grinding due to texlive-texmf and
xmltex being, unnecessarily, pulled in chroots (either local ones or
on the BS). Note that for most of the packages I saw,
--enable-gtk-doc-html is the default (assuming only --enable-gtk-doc
was passed to configure).
o I don't see any packages with pdf gtk-doc documentation:
$ urpmf /usr/share/gtk-doc | grep pdf
gives nothing at all.
So, theoretically, this split shouldn't break any packages (there're
144 SRPMS that have BR gtk-doc and 5 -devel packages that require
gtk-doc). And if any package breaks due to the split, the fix is
simply adding BR gtk-doc-pdf. Of course we can make it more painful
and require that those 149 packages get a test build before the split
is OK'ed...
Maybe we should first set as policy to provide HTML developer
documentation and not PDFs when there is a choice. Note however that HTML
docs generated by doxygen can take a lot of space.
Christiaan
[1] that's why I'd like to ask you not to remove any autoreconf/autotools/etc.
calls from %build (:
