Re: Possible trimming of build dependencies
Jakub Wilk writes:
> * George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net>, 2010-05-16, 20:51:
> >>> Also, it seems to me that build-depending on xsltproc && docbook-xsl
> >>> && docbook-xml would not extremely trim the bits to be pulled as
> >>> compared to those pulled in the xmlto case, so don't expect big wins
> >>> here ;-)
> >>
> >> AFAICT the above trio don't depend on the (la)tex packages that xmlto
> >> does, and they take a long time to install.
> >
> >Well, xmlto does not pull any latex packages AFAICS, and my cowbuilder
> >--login test says dice wrt build-dependencies drag:
> >
> ># apt-get install xmlto
> >Need to get 468kB/3592kB of archives.
> >After this operation, 20.6MB of additional disk space will be used.
> >Do you want to continue [Y/n]? n
> >
> ># apt-get install xsltproc docbook-xsl docbook-xml
> >Need to get 345kB/3469kB of archives.
> >After this operation, 20.1MB of additional disk space will be used.
> >Do you want to continue [Y/n]? n
>
> You don't need docbook-xml if you use --nonet or --novalid:
>
> # apt-get install xsltproc docbook-xsl
> [...]
> Need to get 0B/2840kB of archives.
> After this operation, 15.8MB of additional disk space will be used.
With --nonet alone and without docbook-xml installed I get a minor nuisance,
which might be innocent, since the man-page looks correctly generated to me.
xsltproc -''-nonet -''-param man.charmap.use.subset "0"
/usr/share/sgml/docbook/stylesheet/xsl/nwalsh/manpages/docbook.xsl
man/XXX.1.xml
I/O error : Attempt to load network entity http://www.oasis-
open.org/docbook/xml/4.5/docbookx.dtd
man/XXX.1.xml:62: warning: failed to load external entity "http://www.oasis-
open.org/docbook/xml/4.5/docbookx.dtd"
]>
^
OTOH, --novalid (if applicable in that case, of course, well we can always
have several invocations of xsltproc with different option sets) really
prevents loading dtd, and not having to pull docbook-xml looks like a decent
cut, indeed, I agree.
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
Reply to: