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

Reply via email to