eclipse-platform -> javadoc

[Orion Poplawski]

Is the requirement of javadoc for eclipse-platform really necessary? 
javadoc is huge!

235M    /usr/share/javadoc/

I'm just looking for a small eclipse CDT install....

-- 
Orion Poplawski
System Administrator                   303-415-9701 x222
Colorado Research Associates/NWRA      FAX: [phone]
3380 Mitchell Lane, Boulder CO 80301   http://www.co-ra.com

[Andrew Overholt]

* Orion Poplawski <orion(a)cora.nwra.com&gt; [2006-04-11 12:34]:
>  Is the requirement of javadoc for eclipse-platform really necessary?
>
>  javadoc is huge! 
What do you mean?  You mean you don't want the docs as part of the
platform?  This is part of the classic debate about whether we split
packages into super-small pieces or keep them relatively close to their
upstream downloadable counterparts.  I've tended to favour the latter but
I'm not married to that way of doing things.

/usr/share/javadoc isn't relevant here.

Andrew

[Orion Poplawski]

Andrew Overholt wrote:
>  * Orion Poplawski <orion(a)cora.nwra.com&gt; [2006-04-11 12:34]:
> > Is the requirement of javadoc for eclipse-platform really necessary? 
> > javadoc is huge!
>  
>  What do you mean?  You mean you don't want the docs as part of the
>  platform?  This is part of the classic debate about whether we split
>  packages into super-small pieces or keep them relatively close to their
>  upstream downloadable counterparts.  I've tended to favour the latter but
>  I'm not married to that way of doing things.
>  
>  /usr/share/javadoc isn't relevant here.
>  
>  Andrew 
Well, it is, but I suppose not directly:

[root@cynosure ~]# du -sh /usr/share/javadoc/java-1.4.2-gcj-compat-1.4.2.0
235M    /usr/share/javadoc/java-1.4.2-gcj-compat-1.4.2.0
[root@cynosure ~]# rpm -e java-1.4.2-gcj-compat-javadoc
error: Failed dependencies:
         java-javadoc is needed by (installed) 
eclipse-platform-3.1.2-1jpp_13fc.i386
[root@cynosure ~]# rpm -e eclipse-platform
error: Failed dependencies:
         eclipse-platform is needed by (installed) 
eclipse-cdt-3.0.2-1jpp_2fc.i386
         eclipse-platform >= 1:3.1.2 is needed by (installed) 
eclipse-cdt-3.0.2-1jpp_2fc.i386
         eclipse-platform < 1:3.1.3 is needed by (installed) 
eclipse-cdt-3.0.2-1jpp_2fc.i386


If I'm only going to be programming with eclipse in C/C++/Fortran using 
the CDT, I don't want a *LOT* (235MB!) of Java API documentation as well.

-- 
Orion Poplawski
System Administrator                   303-415-9701 x222
Colorado Research Associates/NWRA      FAX: [phone]
3380 Mitchell Lane, Boulder CO 80301   http://www.co-ra.com

[Andrew Overholt]

* Orion Poplawski <orion(a)cora.nwra.com&gt; [2006-04-12 12:30]:
>  
>  If I'm only going to be programming with eclipse in C/C++/Fortran using 
>  the CDT, I don't want a *LOT* (235MB!) of Java API documentation as well. 
Okay, I think I have a solution.  We need to put the ISV docs into the
-devel packages.  The user docs don't have the API docs and therefore don't
have the java-javadoc (java-1.4.2-gcj-compat-javadoc here) dependency for
symlinks.

Can you file a bug to track this?

Thanks,

Andrew

[Orion Poplawski]

Andrew Overholt wrote:
>  
>  Okay, I think I have a solution.  We need to put the ISV docs into the
>  -devel packages.  The user docs don't have the API docs and therefore don't
>  have the java-javadoc (java-1.4.2-gcj-compat-javadoc here) dependency for
>  symlinks.
>  
>  Can you file a bug to track this?
>  
>  Thanks,
>  
>  Andrew 
Can I ever!

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188724

Thanks!

-- 
Orion Poplawski
System Administrator                   303-415-9701 x222
Colorado Research Associates/NWRA      FAX: [phone]
3380 Mitchell Lane, Boulder CO 80301   http://www.co-ra.com

[Andrew Overholt]

* Orion Poplawski <orion(a)cora.nwra.com&gt; [2006-04-12 12:44]:
>  Andrew Overholt wrote:
>  >
>  >Okay, I think I have a solution.  We need to put the ISV docs into the
>  >-devel packages.  The user docs don't have the API docs and therefore don't
>  >have the java-javadoc (java-1.4.2-gcj-compat-javadoc here) dependency for
>  >symlinks.
>  >
>  >Can you file a bug to track this?
>  
>  Can I ever!
>  
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188724 
Giddy-up, thanks.

>  Thanks! 
No problem.

Andrew