do we /really/ need to be shipping a 600~meg root-doc subpackage?
a.badger at gmail.com
Tue Nov 16 23:03:21 UTC 2010
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 03:13:35PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:22:56 -0800
> Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> wrote:
> > I'm seeing 15~ builds of this package in the past 2~ months. Each of
> > those builds cranks out a 600~ meg doc subpackage. Is this really
> > necessary? Does the docs change that much each release? Is it really
> > worth trundling that data all over the place instead of linking to a
> > website that has it?
> Yeah. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=621812 for some
> discussion of this.
> IMHO, I would prefer also to see the subpackage dropped and pointing
> people to a web site for further docs if possible.
> Thats a fair bit of BW hit on every sync for my mirror, as well as lots
> of disk space, etc. (I'd guess around 6GB or so with the base/updates
> for 12/13/14/rawhide trees)
Another possibility -- two main packages built from the same tarball instead
of subpackages. That would at least mean we don't need to update when
we're updating only for changes in the spec file (as opposed to new upstream
releases). If we were lucky and the documentation doesn't difer between
upstream minor releases, (from 5.26.00b to 5.26.00.c for instance) we
wouldn't have to rebuild it then either.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20101116/f0b620f3/attachment.bin
More information about the devel