Dne 22. 11. 22 v 9:21 Benson Muite napsal(a):
On 11/1/22 20:53, Vít Ondruch wrote:Dne 26. 10. 22 v 17:32 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):We could also try to somehow modify the Gem.done_installing hooks and remove the RDoc hook and replace it with ours.Building upon this idea, I am attaching an proof of concept. This loads the original RubyGems RDoc hook, removes it an replaces by a custom hook. In this custom hook (which is inherited from the original code), the generator name can be modified from "darkfish" to something completely different and hence load the custom generator (which can inherit from Darkfish). The options could also be potentially modified to change the #setup_generator method.Thanks for this. Is it ok to build upon this incrementally?
This would be just distraction. I'll rather finally spend time trying to find the ultimate solution then fixing licenses where this is know issue since forever, but was never really pressing.
And if you really want some quick and dirty solution, then it would be better to just drop the fonts instead of adding license tags. This would result in slightly broken documentation, which would frankly nobody noticed.
Less dirty solution would be to drop the fonts and require them into the -doc packages.
There is even possible to not generate the documentation at all or drop it and not ship it.
As you can see, there is many opportunities for bad workarounds and I don't really want to dig this rabbit hole.
Vít
License information is needed for all included components, even fonts. So an extra license tag should be added to all Ruby packages that produce rdoc documentation if it will be troublesome to unbundle fonts relatively soon. Impact on css is primarily where the fonts are, but css and javascript files are much smaller than the font files.Another option could be leave the generator as it is and have additional hook, which would run after the default generators and update the generated content. While tempting, I still think the generator/template should be extracted from RDoc and therefore this is less appealing option IMHO.BTW we could also use the hook to remove the `--document=ri,rdoc` option from `%gem_install` macro [1]. But that would be probably too much magic.Vít[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/blob/588a4ae9f02928d7bedbcf46a739d36b0a76e632/f/macros.rubygems#_31_______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.orgFedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelinesList Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
