[Mageia-dev] RFC: gtk-doc proposed changes

Ahmad Samir ahmadsamir3891 at gmail.com
Fri Jul 22 12:50:39 CEST 2011


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.

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:
- 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)?

- 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
  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...

WDYT?

-- 
Ahmad Samir


More information about the Mageia-dev mailing list