bug#37850: Glib documentation is missing

[Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2318 bytes --]

Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com> writes:

> Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz> writes:
>
>> From 893613a3b99c20688cc331d2926dbee28cc143d7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz>
>> Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2019 17:36:17 +0100
>> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add glib-minimal and build glib doc.
>>
>> glib documentation must be built with gtk-doc which in turn depends on glib,
>> so we need to define glib-minimal which does not depend on gtk-doc.
>>
>> * gnu/packages/glib.scm (glib-minimal): New variable.
>> (glib)[source]: Don't use `name'.
>> * gnu/packages/avahi.scm: Use glib-minimal when necessary.
>> * gnu/packages/cups.scm: Use glib-minimal when necessary.
>> * gnu/packages/gnome.scm: Use glib-minimal when necessary.
>> * gnu/packages/graphviz.scm: Use glib-minimal when necessary.
>> * gnu/packages/gtk.scm: Use glib-minimal when necessary.
>> * gnu/packages/inkscape.scm: Use glib-minimal when necessary.
>> * gnu/packages/pdf.scm: Use glib-minimal when necessary.
>
> Please mention all changed variables and inputs here, as we always do.

Sure, I didn't because I wasn't sure it was a good idea either :p

> That said, I'm not certain this is a good solution.  Why do some
> packages use glib-minimal and others not?  What does "necessary" mean in
> this context?
>
> What about 'hiding' the normal glib package, and expose a
> 'glib-with-documentation' variant to end users, similar to how the
> 'cmake' package works?

cmake-minimal builds the doc already, I don't see a
cmake-with-documentation.  Did you mean something else?
I see a couple packages with the "-documentation" prefix, so we could
use "glib-documentation".

In a previous email, I explained that I wanted to put the documentation
in the "doc" output of glib for 2 reasons:

- For consistency with the other packages from the GTK family.
- To restore the missing "gtk:doc" output.  If I understand correctly,
  we don't have a provision to deprecate outputs, only packages.  I
  think this is a bug.

Now my current patch is admittedly not pretty.
If we fix the output deprecation feature, then glib:doc could be
forwarded to glib-documentation.  And I guess we can live without
complete consistency.

Thoughts?

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]