FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Packaging

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-05-2010, 07:41 PM
"Tom "spot" Callaway"
 
Default New autogenerated documentation guideline proposal

On 08/05/2010 03:04 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> I'm proposing a new guideline, that autogenerated documentation must be
> a reasonable size. The reason for this guideline is that there are a
> number of packages in the repository with automatically generated
> documentation that is *far* bigger than the package itself.

Well, what is a "reasonable size"?

~spot
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 08-05-2010, 07:41 PM
seth vidal
 
Default New autogenerated documentation guideline proposal

On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 15:41 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 08/05/2010 03:04 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> > I'm proposing a new guideline, that autogenerated documentation must be
> > a reasonable size. The reason for this guideline is that there are a
> > number of packages in the repository with automatically generated
> > documentation that is *far* bigger than the package itself.
>
> Well, what is a "reasonable size"?
>

maybe less than 1% of the total filelists size?

I'm comfortable saying < 100M, too.

-sv


--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 08-05-2010, 07:49 PM
Jonathan Dieter
 
Default New autogenerated documentation guideline proposal

On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 15:41 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 15:41 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > On 08/05/2010 03:04 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> > > I'm proposing a new guideline, that autogenerated documentation must be
> > > a reasonable size. The reason for this guideline is that there are a
> > > number of packages in the repository with automatically generated
> > > documentation that is *far* bigger than the package itself.
> >
> > Well, what is a "reasonable size"?
> >
>
> maybe less than 1% of the total filelists size?
>
> I'm comfortable saying < 100M, too.

I suggested no larger than the src rpm in the wiki entry, but that may
be me swinging too far in the other direction.

Jonathan
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 08-06-2010, 12:59 AM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default New autogenerated documentation guideline proposal

On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 03:41:18PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> On 08/05/2010 03:04 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> > I'm proposing a new guideline, that autogenerated documentation must be
> > a reasonable size. The reason for this guideline is that there are a
> > number of packages in the repository with automatically generated
> > documentation that is *far* bigger than the package itself.
>
> Well, what is a "reasonable size"?
>
I'm against the reasonable size definition. We've discussed some other
potential criteria on the devel list...

-TOshio
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 08-06-2010, 01:13 AM
Braden McDaniel
 
Default New autogenerated documentation guideline proposal

On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 22:04 +0300, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> I'm proposing a new guideline, that autogenerated documentation must be
> a reasonable size. The reason for this guideline is that there are a
> number of packages in the repository with automatically generated
> documentation that is *far* bigger than the package itself.
>
> Some examples:
> antlr3 - src rpm size: 1.5MB - antlr3-C-doc rpm size: 56MB
> cloudy - src rpm size: 23.0MB - cloudy-devel-doc rpm size: 110MB
> kdelibs - src rpm size: 13.9MB - kdelibs-apidocs rpm size: 283MB
> mrpt - src rpm size: 34.7MB - mrpt-doc rpm size: 252MB
> xrootd - src rpm size: 1.7MB - xrootd-doc rpm size: 104MB
>
> and, my all-time favorite (which sparked this whole thing):
> root - src rpm size: 27.8MB - root-doc rpm size: 687MB
>
> This isn't only a size problem.

You haven't said why size is a problem in the first place. Are we
trying to limit the total size of Fedora packages? (To what?)

> These packages also tend to have loads
> of small files (root-doc has over 20,000), all of which end up in
> filelists.xml, which then get processed by yum when it needs complete
> filelists.

To the extent that this sort of thing is a real *general* problem, it
needs to be solved on the yum side.

--
Braden McDaniel <braden@endoframe.com>

--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 08-06-2010, 01:26 AM
seth vidal
 
Default New autogenerated documentation guideline proposal

On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 21:13 -0400, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> > These packages also tend to have loads
> > of small files (root-doc has over 20,000), all of which end up in
> > filelists.xml, which then get processed by yum when it needs complete
> > filelists.
>
> To the extent that this sort of thing is a real *general* problem, it
> needs to be solved on the yum side.

Agreed. It may become a target feature for f15- but it will involve
changing the format of the repodata and that will be invasive.


-sv


--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 08-06-2010, 03:36 AM
Carl Thompson
 
Default New autogenerated documentation guideline proposal

On 08/05/2010 10:21 PM, Chen Lei wrote:
> 2010/8/6 seth vidal <skvidal@fedoraproject.org>:
>> On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 21:13 -0400, Braden McDaniel wrote:
>>>> These packages also tend to have loads
>>>> of small files (root-doc has over 20,000), all of which end up in
>>>> filelists.xml, which then get processed by yum when it needs complete
>>>> filelists.
>>> To the extent that this sort of thing is a real *general* problem, it
>>> needs to be solved on the yum side.
>> Agreed. It may become a target feature for f15- but it will involve
>> changing the format of the repodata and that will be invasive.
>>
>>
>> -sv
> At least, we should not ship apidocs for normally desktop program(e.g.
> gedit) and not ship duplicate format docs(e.g. shipping html pdf doc
> in the same package), personally I like html docs better than doc/pdf.
>
> I suggest to disscuss extreme big auto-generated apidocs(size > 100M)
> rpm case by case, it'll be better to determine whether shipping it or
> not by FESCo. I think only popular libraries are worth to ship a big
> -doc subpackage, other library packages should not enable generate big
> doc subpackage by default, user who really need those docs can
> generate -doc subpackage by running 'rpmbuild -bb with...'.
>
> Regards,
> Chen Lei
> --
> packaging mailing list
> packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
>
How about a docs repo seperate from standard repos so end users could
disable that repo if they don't want it.

Just a thought.

Carl Thompson

--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 08-06-2010, 03:51 AM
Braden McDaniel
 
Default New autogenerated documentation guideline proposal

On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 11:21 +0800, Chen Lei wrote:
> 2010/8/6 seth vidal <skvidal@fedoraproject.org>:
> > On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 21:13 -0400, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> >> > These packages also tend to have loads
> >> > of small files (root-doc has over 20,000), all of which end up in
> >> > filelists.xml, which then get processed by yum when it needs complete
> >> > filelists.
> >>
> >> To the extent that this sort of thing is a real *general* problem, it
> >> needs to be solved on the yum side.
> >
> > Agreed. It may become a target feature for f15- but it will involve
> > changing the format of the repodata and that will be invasive.
> >
> >
> > -sv
>
> At least, we should not ship apidocs for normally desktop program(e.g.
> gedit)

Er, *at all*? Why not?

> and not ship duplicate format docs(e.g. shipping html pdf doc
> in the same package), personally I like html docs better than doc/pdf.
>
> I suggest to disscuss extreme big auto-generated apidocs(size > 100M)
> rpm case by case, it'll be better to determine whether shipping it or
> not by FESCo. I think only popular libraries are worth to ship a big
> -doc subpackage, other library packages should not enable generate big
> doc subpackage by default,

I can see a case for a policy that different documentation formats
should be in different packages (e.g., -doc-html, -doc-pdf, etc.); but
why insist that only one be provided?

> user who really need those docs can
> generate -doc subpackage by running 'rpmbuild -bb with...'.

Yes; or they could forget the whole thing and go to the upstream
package. A distribution's packaging is supposed to make this part
easier.

--
Braden McDaniel <braden@endoframe.com>

--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 08-06-2010, 05:00 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default New autogenerated documentation guideline proposal

On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 11:21:48AM +0800, Chen Lei wrote:
> 2010/8/6 seth vidal <skvidal@fedoraproject.org>:
> > On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 21:13 -0400, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> >> > * These packages also tend to have loads
> >> > of small files (root-doc has over 20,000), all of which end up in
> >> > filelists.xml, which then get processed by yum when it needs complete
> >> > filelists.
> >>
> >> To the extent that this sort of thing is a real *general* problem, it
> >> needs to be solved on the yum side.
> >
> > Agreed. It may become a target feature for f15- but it will involve
> > changing the format of the repodata and that will be invasive.
> >
> >
> > -sv
>
> At least, we should not ship apidocs for normally desktop program(e.g.
> gedit) and not ship duplicate format docs(e.g. shipping html pdf doc
> in the same package), personally I like html docs better than doc/pdf.
>
> I suggest to disscuss extreme big auto-generated apidocs(size > 100M)
> rpm case by case, it'll be better to determine whether shipping it or
> not by FESCo. I think only popular libraries are worth to ship a big
> -doc subpackage, other library packages should not enable generate big
> doc subpackage by default, user who really need those docs can
> generate -doc subpackage by running 'rpmbuild -bb with...'.
>
I'm much more in favor of leaving this up to the package maintainers than to
have FESCo decide.

-Toshio
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 08-06-2010, 05:02 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default New autogenerated documentation guideline proposal

On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 10:36:43PM -0500, Carl Thompson wrote:
> On 08/05/2010 10:21 PM, Chen Lei wrote:
> > 2010/8/6 seth vidal <skvidal@fedoraproject.org>:
> >> On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 21:13 -0400, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> >>>> These packages also tend to have loads
> >>>> of small files (root-doc has over 20,000), all of which end up in
> >>>> filelists.xml, which then get processed by yum when it needs complete
> >>>> filelists.
> >>> To the extent that this sort of thing is a real *general* problem, it
> >>> needs to be solved on the yum side.
> >> Agreed. It may become a target feature for f15- but it will involve
> >> changing the format of the repodata and that will be invasive.
> >>
> >>
> >> -sv
> > At least, we should not ship apidocs for normally desktop program(e.g.
> > gedit) and not ship duplicate format docs(e.g. shipping html pdf doc
> > in the same package), personally I like html docs better than doc/pdf.
> >
> > I suggest to disscuss extreme big auto-generated apidocs(size > 100M)
> > rpm case by case, it'll be better to determine whether shipping it or
> > not by FESCo. I think only popular libraries are worth to ship a big
> > -doc subpackage, other library packages should not enable generate big
> > doc subpackage by default, user who really need those docs can
> > generate -doc subpackage by running 'rpmbuild -bb with...'.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Chen Lei
> > --
> > packaging mailing list
> > packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
> >
> How about a docs repo seperate from standard repos so end users could
> disable that repo if they don't want it.
>
> Just a thought.
>
I like this thought but I'm not sure if it will work with our
infrastructure. It'd be the time we split subpackages built
by the same SRPM into separate repos. If this is something that people
wantto explore we'll need to ask the people who deal with koji, bodhi, the
repositories, etc, how hard this will be to implement and weigh those
against the benefits.

-Toshio
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:00 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org