Re: [PATCH] gnu: unison: Add "doc" output.

[Eric Bavier <ericbavier@openmailbox.org>]

On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 23:11:07 +0100
ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) wrote:

> Eric Bavier <ericbavier@openmailbox.org> skribis:
> 
> > +(define (unison-doc ext version hash)
> > +  (origin
> > +    (method url-fetch)
> > +    (uri (string-append "https://www.seas.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/unison/"
> > +                        "download/releases/unison-" version "/unison-"
> > +                        version "-manual." ext))
> > +    (sha256 (base32 hash))))
> 
> [...]
> 
> > +     `(("doc-pdf"
> > +        ,(unison-doc "pdf" version
> > +                     "0y5mywjn352nw4wqli94gnc5vn1f72g56jqqk1nqajz0ark998nb"))
> > +       ("doc-ps"
> > +        ,(unison-doc "ps" version
> > +                     "11awy1xxhmckwnx42hllmngmx8q4ck18vpwpgfqqhj0x8vx0b3ha"))
> > +       ("doc-html"
> > +        ,(unison-doc "html" version
> > +                     "06myrpv067j5ffm265fm0a83gm41j9bv3ps3yiyb1hqgfy1qy3ah"))))
> 
> Could we instead build them from source?

Possibly.  The documentation source is not available in the download
tarball, only in the developer svn repository, so we could do an svn
fetch of that.  Would that be alright?

> I understand that building the PDF/PS would require an extra dependency
> on TeX Live.  This could be:
> 
>   1. ignored, on the grounds that people with substitutes enabled will
>      not have to download TeX Live; or:
> 
>   2. addressed by having only the HTML documentation built, on the
>      grounds the HTML is more appropriate for on-screen reading.
> 
> WDYT?

Option 1 might be fine.  The 'coq' package also requires both texlive
and hevea for its documentation.

`~Eric