Re: Shipping man pages?
- From
- Mark Rosenstand <mark@borkware.net>
- Date
- May 18, 2006, 09:41 UTC
- Message-ID
- <1147945298.1320.35.camel@mjollnir>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vac9f69la.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 01:06 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 5 quoted lines
> Tilman Sauerbeck <tilman@code-monkey.de> writes: > > > atm, the git release tarballs don't contain man pages. > > I ship *source* tarball.
Which is great for generating binaries and other things that are likely to be incompatible across systems.
Show 7 quoted lines
> I also happen to do RPM for people who do not want to build from > the source (btw, I do that from pure inertia). In addition, > preformatted manual pages and html docs are available from man > and html branches of the git.git repository. > > If you are building from the source, please build from the > source. Everything you need is right there.
But asciidoc is a royal PITA to package or install - it doesn't even provide a Makefile: http://www.methods.co.nz/asciidoc/userguide.html#X38
Additionally it carries the whole docbook dependency chain with it.
Show 5 quoted lines
> If you don't build from the source, please use whatever binary > distribution available out there. RPM happens to be available > from kernel.org. If you are on Debian/Ubuntu/Gentoo/others, > please ask your distribution packager to include the manpages > and html docs, if they don't already.
Even the packagers are likely to hate the unneccessary asciidoc dependency. As a result some of the small distributions that don't have the manpower to support 1000+ packages choose to ship git without the man pages, which is a shame, IMO.
> Why does this have to come up so often, and everybody who asks > for them never supplies the patch to do so?
Because it seems like a political decision rather than a technical one (it's trivial to add the docs as a prerequisite for the dist target.)
Show 7 quoted lines
> > Or maybe offer them in a separate tarball? > > Things that are buildable from the source do not belong in the > source tarball. If somebody wants to do this as a patch, I can > be talked into accepting it, but the build procedure should > build a separate tarball (or two; one for man and another for > woman^Whtml).
That would be great! I'd love to submit a patch, but I wouldn't be able to test it, because I'd need asciidoc.