-javadoc and -doc packages with Requires

[Michael Schwendt]

I've run into -doc noarch packages that cannot be installed without
pulling in a long chain of dependencies.

I've thought it is widely accepted practice since Fedora Extras that
documentation packages may be installed independently, i.e. without having
to install an application and all its deps. Especially if the documentation
can be displayed with any browser or viewer. It is convenient if one can
install/remove Documentation packages without any dependencies.

It could be that packagers apply the "Requiring Base Package" guidelines
to -doc subpackages, because the "Documentation" guidelines don't recommend
otherwise:
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation

Can we please agree on keeping -doc packages free of dependencies unless
the documentation is in a custom format specific to an application? (such
as preprocessed+compressed instead of plain HTML, PDF, TXT)

[...]

What about "-javadoc" packages? Generated HTML documentation in noarch
packages that may be displayed with any HTML viewer.

Here it seems packagers add a dependency on "jpackage-utils" only to
pull in dependencies that own the /usr/share/javadoc directory. It's
not jpackage-utils but javapackages-tools that owns it.

  # repoquery --whatprovides /usr/share/javadoc
  javapackages-tools-0:3.4.1-1.fc20.noarch
  javapackages-tools-0:3.4.1-1.fc20.noarch

  # repoquery --whatrequires javapackages-tools|wc -l
  2559
  # repoquery --whatrequires jpackage-utils|wc -l
  2557

As a result, one cannot install -javadoc packages without having to
install dependencies.

Why is it like that? Just to apply the "BuildRequires and Requires"
guidelines for Java packages also to -javadoc packages?

  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation

Could we relax the Java packaging guidelines for -javadoc packages, please?

[Stanislav Ochotnicky]

Quoting Michael Schwendt (2013-12-17 13:40:48)
>  What about "-javadoc" packages? Generated HTML
> documentation in noarch
>  packages that may be displayed with any HTML viewer.
>  
>  Here it seems packagers add a dependency on "jpackage-utils" only to
>  pull in dependencies that own the /usr/share/javadoc directory. It's
>  not jpackage-utils but javapackages-tools that owns it.
>  
>    # repoquery --whatprovides /usr/share/javadoc
>    javapackages-tools-0:3.4.1-1.fc20.noarch
>    javapackages-tools-0:3.4.1-1.fc20.noarch 
So now you know why they require javapackages-tools (jpackage-utils). They
mostly need if for directory ownership

>    # repoquery --whatrequires javapackages-tools|wc -l
>    2559
>    # repoquery --whatrequires jpackage-utils|wc -l
>    2557
>  
>  As a result, one cannot install -javadoc packages without having to
>  install dependencies.
>  
>  Why is it like that? Just to apply the "BuildRequires and Requires"
>  guidelines for Java packages also to -javadoc packages? 
It's like that because directories have to be owned by some RPM. In this case
that's javapackages-tools

>    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
>  
>  Could we relax the Java packaging guidelines for -javadoc packages, please? 
Not unless packaging of javapackages-tools is changed so that directories are
owned by some "java-filesystem" package. We've always had bigger fish to
fry
though so nobody bothers with this. javapackages-tools have negligent dep chain
anyway (python, python-lxml). It's not a simple guideline change, but rather
change of autorequires generator, packaging guideline, rebuild and manual fix of
older packages that do not use autorequires generator. It's doable though, but
very low priority (for me at least)

Besides there are probably still a lot of javadoc packages that pull in main package.

-- 
Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky(a)redhat.com&gt;
Software Engineer - Developer Experience

PGP: 7B087241
Red Hat Inc.                               http://cz.redhat.com

[Dridi Boukelmoune]

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
<sochotnicky(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  Quoting Michael Schwendt (2013-12-17 13:40:48)
> > What about "-javadoc" packages? Generated HTML documentation in noarch
> > packages that may be displayed with any HTML viewer.
> >
> > Here it seems packagers add a dependency on "jpackage-utils" only to
> > pull in dependencies that own the /usr/share/javadoc directory. It's
> > not jpackage-utils but javapackages-tools that owns it.
> >
> >   # repoquery --whatprovides /usr/share/javadoc
> >   javapackages-tools-0:3.4.1-1.fc20.noarch
> >   javapackages-tools-0:3.4.1-1.fc20.noarch
>
>  So now you know why they require javapackages-tools (jpackage-utils). They
>  mostly need if for directory ownership 
Maybe they could co-own the directory instead of requiring javapackages-tools.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_directory_is_owne...

> >   # repoquery --whatrequires javapackages-tools|wc -l
> >   2559
> >   # repoquery --whatrequires jpackage-utils|wc -l
> >   2557
> >
> > As a result, one cannot install -javadoc packages without having to
> > install dependencies.
> >
> > Why is it like that? Just to apply the "BuildRequires and Requires"
> > guidelines for Java packages also to -javadoc packages?
>
>  It's like that because directories have to be owned by some RPM. In this case
>  that's javapackages-tools
>
> >   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
> >
> > Could we relax the Java packaging guidelines for -javadoc packages, please?
>
>  Not unless packaging of javapackages-tools is changed so that directories are
>  owned by some "java-filesystem" package. We've always had bigger fish to
> fry
>  though so nobody bothers with this. javapackages-tools have negligent dep chain
>  anyway (python, python-lxml). It's not a simple guideline change, but rather
>  change of autorequires generator, packaging guideline, rebuild and manual fix of
>  older packages that do not use autorequires generator. It's doable though, but
>  very low priority (for me at least)
>
>  Besides there are probably still a lot of javadoc packages that pull in main package.
>
>  --
>  Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky(a)redhat.com&gt;
>  Software Engineer - Developer Experience
>
>  PGP: 7B087241
>  Red Hat Inc.                               http://cz.redhat.com
>  --
>  packaging mailing list
>  packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

[Michael Schwendt]

On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 14:10:27 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:

>  >>   # repoquery --whatprovides /usr/share/javadoc
>  >>   javapackages-tools-0:3.4.1-1.fc20.noarch
>  >>   javapackages-tools-0:3.4.1-1.fc20.noarch
>  >
>  > So now you know why they require javapackages-tools (jpackage-utils). They
>  > mostly need if for directory ownership
>  
>  Maybe they could co-own the directory instead of requiring javapackages-tools.
>  
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_directory_is_owne...
>   
Exactly my thought. That part of the guideline is rather new (2012/2013),
so it's likely that the javadoc packaging guidelines just need an update.

Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:

>  > Besides there are probably still a lot of javadoc packages that
> pull in main package.
>  > 
Which asks for an update to the guidelines. We need to start somewhere.
Sure, it'll be low-priority stuff, but it's really more convenient if
documentation can be installed without pulling in a huge dep-chain.