[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: gentoo-dev
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Should Sphinx really depends on PYTHON_COMPAT/PYTHON_USEDEP for `dev-python/*` ebui
From: Alex Turbov <i.zaufi () gmail ! com>
Date: 2017-05-18 6:23:26
Message-ID: CANktQttq09yZrdFRSA2kT3fOQT=mkamn2cAuA6VHV0+33WhMag () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
As for me I'm doing few Python projects and as I said before I prefer to
have (real) offline docs, cuz often visit places far from "civilization"
and where 150Kib/s considered as pretty fast Internet connection. Also I'm
very patient on keeping my Gentoo system under control and minimized
(eliminating unnecessary dependencies and files). I could help with adding
patches and bug reports for packages I use.
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On śro, 2017-05-17 at 21:44 -0700, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> > 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?
> >
>
> For a start, it'd be nice to figure all the stuff out in detail,
> and document it -- when USEDEP is needed, not needed, when we need
> something else (like the plugin case). Once that is done, it's just
> a matter of checking and fixing existing packages, and being patient
> with devs doing the same mistakes again ;-).
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny
>
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<div dir="ltr">As for me I'm doing few Python projects and as I said before I \
prefer to have (real) offline docs, cuz often visit places far from \
"civilization" and where 150Kib/s considered as pretty fast Internet \
connection. Also I'm very patient on keeping my Gentoo system under control and \
minimized (eliminating unnecessary dependencies and files). I could help with adding \
patches and bug reports for packages I use.<br></div><div \
class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:10 PM, \
Michał Górny <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mgorny@gentoo.org" \
target="_blank">mgorny@gentoo.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On śro, 2017-05-17 at \
21:44 -0700, Daniel Campbell wrote:<br> > On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 09:32:46AM \
+0200, Michał Górny wrote:<br> > > On pią, 2017-05-12 at 17:42 -0700, Daniel \
Campbell wrote:<br> > > > On 05/11/2017 12:51 AM, Michał Górny wrote:<br>
> > > > In fact, I'm personally leaning towards not building docs at \
all<br> > > > > in ebuilds. It's practically a wasted effort since \
most of the time<br> > > > > users read docs online anyway.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > I believe that's a little myopic; a user (or even developer) may \
not<br> > > > have Internet access all the time, or may not have it in their \
primary<br> > > > development environment. Having a copy of the docs locally \
(the entire<br> > > > point of USE="doc") is super valuable to \
have when you're away from the<br> > > > network. I'm sure I'm \
not alone as one of the people who uses the flag<br> > > > and appreciates \
the work that goes into making sure said flag works.<br> > > ><br>
> > > Sure, we could yank out every single USE="doc", but then we \
lose a nice<br> > > > feature of the tree and users are back to either (a) \
trawling the Web to<br> > > > find the project site, then hope they have \
docs in a separate download,<br> > > > or (b) we end up with foo+1 packages, \
one extra for any package that has<br> > > > documentation. Neither are \
particularly good solutions; Debian has done<br> > > > the latter and it \
results in a huge number of packages for little gain.<br> > ><br>
> > The Python team mostly focuses on providing packages for dependencies \
of<br> > > other Gentoo packages, not direct Python development. We do not \
have<br> > > the manpower to go above that.<br>
> ><br>
> > --<br>
> > Best regards,<br>
> > Michał Górny<br>
><br>
> Ah, well that at least explains why you're not interested in it.<br>
> Dependency management alone can be tough; I've not noticed any Python<br>
> issues, so it seems like you guys do well. :) If you don't mind me<br>
> asking, what would it take to solve the USE="doc" issue to the \
Python<br> > team's standard? I have some personal interest in Python and \
wouldn't<br> > mind adding 'doc' support for Python packages that \
users request docs<br> > for.<br>
><br>
> Maybe others are willing to join me on this. Is that something we can<br>
> make happen without getting in anyone's hair?<br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div>For a start, it'd be nice to figure all the stuff out in detail,<br>
and document it -- when USEDEP is needed, not needed, when we need<br>
something else (like the plugin case). Once that is done, it's just<br>
a matter of checking and fixing existing packages, and being patient<br>
with devs doing the same mistakes again ;-).<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
--<br>
Best regards,<br>
Michał Górny<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic