Re: Keep shipping also generated gtk-doc html/ folder?

[Jeremy Bicha]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Simon McVittie
 wrote:
> Ubuntu deals with this slightly differently by nominating one
> architecture to be special (I think it might still be 32-bit x86, which
> was the most important architecture when Ubuntu started?), and only
> building the Architecture: all packages on that autobuilder, not the others.

As of Ubuntu 15.04, arch-independent packages are built as part of the
amd64 build.

Jeremy
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Keep shipping also generated gtk-doc html/ folder?

[Simon McVittie]

On 27/06/16 17:44, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> Historically, one reason for including generated documentation in
> tarballs was that the generated docs depend on details of the build
> architecture, and timestamps, etc. So, generating the docs multiple
> times for various architectures in build systems would generate
> multilib conflicts.

In Debian we deal with this by doing a separate build pass on the
autobuilders for "Architecture: all" packages (the dpkg equivalent of
RPM's noarch), including documentation.

Ubuntu deals with this slightly differently by nominating one
architecture to be special (I think it might still be 32-bit x86, which
was the most important architecture when Ubuntu started?), and only
building the Architecture: all packages on that autobuilder, not the others.

Reproducible builds  also mitigate
this by either eliminating documentation timestamps, or setting them to
the date at which the *source code* changed (for example in
Debian/Ubuntu we use the date in the latest debian/changelog entry).

Rebuilding everything, including Autotools-generated files (Makefile.in,
configure) and documentation, is widely considered to be best-practice
for Debian packages. Taking any generated content from tarballs and
shipping it in the binary packages would mean we aren't actually
compiling from the source code (preferred form for modification), which
would mean we don't really know whether our system *can* do that: this
becomes a practical problem as soon as we want to make a change to the
source of those generated files.

-- 
Simon McVittie
Collabora Ltd. 

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Keep shipping also generated gtk-doc html/ folder?

[Matthias Clasen]

Historically, one reason for including generated documentation in
tarballs was that the generated docs depend on details of the build
architecture, and timestamps, etc. So, generating the docs multiple
times for various architectures in build systems would generate
multilib conflicts.

I'm not sure if that was ever fully fixed.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Keep shipping also generated gtk-doc html/ folder?

[Milan Crha]

On Thu, 2016-06-23 at 11:30 -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> Gentoo uses the html/ contents if they are available, because (1)
> regenerating docs using gtk-doc is often very slow, and (2) it brings
> in more build-time dependencies that annoy some of our users.

Hi,
thanks for the info. In that case my question is void now, let's keep
it as it is.
Bye,
Milan
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Keep shipping also generated gtk-doc html/ folder?

[Alexandre Rostovtsev]

On Thu, 2016-06-23 at 10:35 +0200, Milan Crha wrote:
> It would be interesting to know whether anyone uses the html/ files
> without --enable-gtk-doc these days, but I understand it's a hard
> question.

Gentoo uses the html/ contents if they are available, because (1)
regenerating docs using gtk-doc is often very slow, and (2) it brings
in more build-time dependencies that annoy some of our users.

I suspect that other source-based distros do the same.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Keep shipping also generated gtk-doc html/ folder?

[Frederic Peters]

Milan Crha wrote:

> On Thu, 2016-06-23 at 09:55 +0100, Philip Withnall wrote:
> > If I remember correctly, it’s so that the tarballs can be unpacked to
> > give documentation on developer.gnome.org without having to build
> > anything.

Actually gtk-doc did ship the generated files in the tarballs before
developer.gnome.org existed, so when I did that part I reused the
files that already existed.

> I know there had been quite much buzz about the infrastructure
> recently, I hope they won't dislike me, but maybe it would worth to
> reconsider this and do build the devel-doc for the developer.gnome.org
> site (easier to say, than to do, but maybe it could be extracted from
> the Continuous builds?).

developer.gnome.org can certainly be changed to grab generated HTML
files from any place that would have them.

> Also, it seem to me that it's the gtk-doc adding to the tarball that
> folder and couple files, thus the place to focus any changes on might
> be gtk-doc itself.

Also there has been several efforts to build on gobject-introspection
and expand the documentation to more languages, Mathieu Duponchelle is
working on this; if there's interest we can certainly organize a
session on API docs during the GUADEC.



Fred
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Keep shipping also generated gtk-doc html/ folder?

[Milan Crha]

On Thu, 2016-06-23 at 09:55 +0100, Philip Withnall wrote:
> If I remember correctly, it’s so that the tarballs can be unpacked to
> give documentation on developer.gnome.org without having to build
> anything.

Hi,
I thought it would be to have the documentation available from any
system, for which my argument would be: "there is the online
documentation at developer.gnome.org, which is better than the one in
the tarball", but if it's true what you wrote, then it's the opposite
direction relationship.

I know there had been quite much buzz about the infrastructure
recently, I hope they won't dislike me, but maybe it would worth to
reconsider this and do build the devel-doc for the developer.gnome.org
site (easier to say, than to do, but maybe it could be extracted from
the Continuous builds?).

Also, it seem to me that it's the gtk-doc adding to the tarball that
folder and couple files, thus the place to focus any changes on might
be gtk-doc itself.
Bye,
Milan
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Keep shipping also generated gtk-doc html/ folder?

[Philip Withnall]

On Thu, 2016-06-23 at 10:35 +0200, Milan Crha wrote:
>   Hello,
> while playing with developer documentation I noticed that the source
> tarballs (eventually `make dist` result) contain also developer
> documentation in generated form. These documentation html/ files are
> not small, in case of the glib it makes around 10MB. The thing is
> that
> when I configure with --enable-gtk-doc, then the shipped html/ files
> are regenerated, thus it looks like a waste of space and bandwidth to
> distribute them.
> 
> I do not know the history behind it, maybe I just overlooked
> something
> and it does make sense to distribute that too. That's why I raised it
> here.
> 
> It would be interesting to know whether anyone uses the html/ files
> without --enable-gtk-doc these days, but I understand it's a hard
> question.

If I remember correctly, it’s so that the tarballs can be unpacked to
give documentation on developer.gnome.org without having to build
anything.

Philip

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Keep shipping also generated gtk-doc html/ folder?

[Milan Crha]

Hello,
while playing with developer documentation I noticed that the source
tarballs (eventually `make dist` result) contain also developer
documentation in generated form. These documentation html/ files are
not small, in case of the glib it makes around 10MB. The thing is that
when I configure with --enable-gtk-doc, then the shipped html/ files
are regenerated, thus it looks like a waste of space and bandwidth to
distribute them.

I do not know the history behind it, maybe I just overlooked something
and it does make sense to distribute that too. That's why I raised it
here.

It would be interesting to know whether anyone uses the html/ files
without --enable-gtk-doc these days, but I understand it's a hard
question.

Thanks and bye,
Milan
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list