Hi Sebastien, Sorry this is dragging on a bit.
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 02:43:58PM +0100, Sebastien Marie wrote: > On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 03:55:26PM +0000, Edd Barrett wrote: > > > > How about a separate port for docs that depends on lang/rust? Would that > > be more palatable? > > I assume it could be possible, but I am unsure if rustbuild will be able to > generate only the documentation (and not just binary + doc). Testing is > required :) I've been prodding around. There's a 'doc' target in the top-level Makefile.in, but we don't have a Makefile, presumably because we didn't use the configure script. If I run the configure script, then run `make doc` then it will try to build again (including failing to get a bootstrap binary from rustup). I think we'd need to use the configure script from the start, and I appreciate there is probably a good reason not to do that. But wait, earlier you said: > the main problem with shipping doc subpackages is now it requires > rustdoc binary to be present in the bootstrap archive too. Are you sure? We are already removing the rustdoc binary from the bootstrap tarball in the in-tree 0.15.x version, so how does the in-tree version make docs? It must be using it's own rustdoc? -- Best Regards Edd Barrett http://www.theunixzoo.co.uk
