I Missed that mail. Am Donnerstag, dem 11.02.2021 um 15:12 -0800 schrieb Dmitry Borodaenko: > In light of rdoc generated documentation making ruby packages fail > reprotest, I wonder whether shipping rdoc with ruby libraries is worth > the trouble of trying to fix this. During the latest packaging efforts of webgen these issues became obvious again. I think they have been fixed for the final webgen package. So reprotest failing is not inevitable. > These docs are now easily available online and can be trivially rebuilt > from source by developers who need a local copy. They add a lot to the > size of the packages (e.g. of the 1.9M unpacked size of ruby-pg, 1.5M is > rdoc and 0.5M of that is standard boilerplate like JS, images, and > fonts), this in turn adds to archive size, network bandwidth, time it > takes to download and install the package. > > Is dropping rdoc a reasonable tradeoff to fix reprotest? > > If not, any ideas and/or volunteers for making rdoc generated > documentation reproducible and, ideally, less wasteful? IMHO a possible solution could be: - split out the data files into an rdoc-templates package or something - make the ruby packages using rdoc depend on this package - create links to the files in this package instead to copy them - further I think the links in the rdoc templates directories should be absolute links, not relative ones Regards, Daniel -- Regards, Daniel Leidert <dleidert@debian.org> | https://www.wgdd.de/ GPG-Key RSA4096 / BEED4DED5544A4C03E283DC74BCD0567C296D05D GPG-Key ED25519 / BD3C132D8B3805D1808123AB7ACE00941E338C78 If you like my work consider sponsoring me via https://www.patreon.com/join/dleidert
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part