Re: documentation for packages

["Pouya D. Tafti" <pouya%san-serriffe.org@localhost>]

On 18 November 2010 11:09, Aleksey Cheusov <cheusov%tut.by@localhost> wrote:
> Â>> I think reducing build time is a completely different problem. There is
> Â>> no any reason to rebuild all dependent packages recursively if package
> Â>> producing pdf or ps were changed unless explicit >=x.y.z is specified in
> Â>> BUILD_DEPENDS. Recursive rebuild is only required for library
> Â>> dependencies when API or ABI versions bumped.
>
>> Yes, but reasons for rebuild are magnifold and may be outside of pkgsrc
>> scope - like "local policy".
>
> Do you mean that package building software available for pkgsrc
> always rebuild packages even if there is no reason for this
> or "sysadmin's policy"?
>
>> However, I do agree that this all is bandaid over an upstream problem.
>> Maybe upstream should be asked to provide pre-generated docs?
>
> Being upstream, I always do this. So, it sounds reasonable to me.
>
>> I assume nobody feels the pain when developing on a personal amd64 8gb
>> machine with lots of > 3GHz cores. But pkg build setups are not all
>> like that.
>
> I think Solaris/spark is rather popular pkgsrc platform to provide
> binary repositories on regular basis. BTW, some time ago in IllumOS
> mailing list pkgsrc was discussed as an additional packaging system.
> Maybe it makes sense to unify efforts?

There are other reasons--besides binary availability--to build
packages from source rather than depend on pre-built binaries (custom
options, native vs modular X.Org on NetBSD, etc.).  While fixing
doxygen on, say, Solaris, would make it possible to build packages
that are currently broken on that platform, it does not answer the
question of why, for instance, building cross/avr-libc forcibly pulls
in tex and the kitchen sink.  This seems simply absurd.  You might not
think of it as a big issue if you systematically (re-)build
everything, but there actually exist some unfortunate souls who do not
have access to a compile farm and only build packages that they need
when they need them.

In addition, I also see reasons (significantly, compatibility and
stability) for keeping a production TeXLive system separate from
pkgsrc.  Is it unimaginable or sinful to wish to use pkgsrc for
avr-libc and gimp and everything else, but not for tex?

Pouya