root-doc subpackage slightly obese

[Jonathan Dieter]

On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 10:46 +0200, Thomas Spura wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 11:03:46 +0300
> Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 06:27 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> > > On 5 August 2010 21:49, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Yaah -- so if it's useful documentation, then I'd be against
> > > > creating a rule that bans it.  The next question would be whether
> > > > it's useful or not.... Public vs private certainly sounds like
> > > > one thing to look at.  However, some libraries might want to ship
> > > > information about their private interfaces for people who want to
> > > > help hack on the library so it's not a 100% thing that I'd want
> > > > to enforce with a Guideline....
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps in these two specific cases it would be best to open bugs
> > > > for the maintainers to look at whether some of the documentation
> > > > in here isn't considered useful and could be left out.
> > > 
> > > I have to agree with Toshio here - it would be a bad move to be
> > > banning sub-packaged docs. In the case of root I can say that the
> > > root docs sub-package is very useful.
> > 
> > Sigh.  No one is suggesting banning sub-packaged docs.  I find them
> > quite useful myself.  My suggestion was to limit the size of
> > automatically generated documentation.  However, the feedback I'm
> > getting seems to suggest that a number of people disagree with me. :)
> > 
> > I've taken a look at the root source rpm, and it looks like root-doc
> > is generated by root itself *after* root has been completely built
> > (rather than as part of root's build process).
> > 
> > I've opened a bug, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=621812
> > suggesting that the documentation generation be moved even later, into
> > the %post section of the root-doc install.  This means the
> > documentation will be generated on the user's machine, eliminating
> > the need for a massive download.
> 
> No, please not...
> Generating that documentation will take ages, so each time, %post needs
> at least 45 min - 1 hour to complete...
> (One of my reasons for switching to Fedora from Gentoo, was exactly
> that amount of updating time. ;-) )

According to http://root.cern.ch/root/Documentation.html , it will only
regenerate changed or added documentation, so it should only take a long
time on the first install (I haven't done it, so I'm assuming your 45
min - 1 hour is accurate).

> How about writing a little shell script and include that in the doc
> subpackage, so if a user wants to see documentation, they can run the
> snipped and wait for the run, as they wish?
> 
> Currently, when building root, it's done the same:
> """
> # Generate documentation
> echo Rint.Includes: 0 > .rootrc
> sed "s!@PWD@!${PWD}!g" %{SOURCE2} > html.C
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH=${PWD}/lib:${PWD}/cint/cint/include:${PWD}/cint/cint/stl
> \ ROOTSYS=${PWD} ./bin/root.exe -l -b -q html.C
> rm .rootrc
> mv htmldoc ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version}/html
> """
> 
> Maybe putting that (except the mv in the end) in a snipped, would give
> the user htmldoc in the current folder, where the user called it...

Sounds great.  Honestly, I don't really mind which way it works.

Jonathan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100806/64c91c54/attachment.bin