Re: Build-indep as a way to not build doc.
Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 02:39:59PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> > If we can ever settle on a suitable implementation, I would expect the
>> > savings of both human and CPU cycles to be sizeable, and worth the effort.
>> If the problem is limited to local building of packages without their
>> documentation, maybe we can consider push forward the DEB_BUILD_OPTION "nodoc".
> It doesn't solve the problem that anything needed for the build target has
> to be listed in Build-Depends instead of Build-Depends-Indep, so these
> packages need to be downloaded/installed unless you start hand-hacking
> around this in the package or in the build tools. But then again,
> there's no metadata to tell you which build-dependencies you can ignore when
> you're not building docs, so you get to do this by trial and error, which
> rather neutralizes the intended time-saving benefits.
> Whereas Build-Depends-Indep was always intended to be used for precisely
> this, and only the "build-arch" detection problem prevents it being used
> this way.
Plus nodoc does not mean no docs are build ever. For example nodoc can
turn of the extensive html, pdf and postscript doc generation from
latex but leave the manpages intact in a package. The docs would
shrink noticably to a reasonable size without disapearing completly.