Re: Should a Guix package include documentation dependencies to be considered complete?

[Akib Azmain Turja <akib@disroot.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1179 bytes --]

jgart <jgart@dismail.de> writes:

> Hi Guixers,
>
> For example,
>
> https://github.com/Abjad/abjad/blob/63520b2a00ef59f3302837f843d069c3946baa6c/docs/Makefile#L113
>
> We have abjad packaged but we don't necessarily have all the
> dependencies needed to build everything that abjad provides such as a
> PDF document that it mentions in its project Makefile.
>
> Should we include the LaTeX dependencies in the abjad package?
>
> Should all Python packages include the required dependencies to build documentation?
>
> We currently include all the dependencies to run the tests, why not do
> the same for documentation building?
>
> Should we make it a requirement or goal to always package a given package's "documentation-inputs"?
>
> There's another thread where I already talked on this topic with roptat
> briefly. I'll find it and link it soon.
>

Is it just limited to the documentation files, or does it also include
softwares needed to read them?

-- 
Akib Azmain Turja, GPG key: 70018CE5819F17A3BBA666AFE74F0EFA922AE7F5
Fediverse: akib@hostux.social
Codeberg: akib
emailselfdefense.fsf.org | "Nothing can be secure without encryption."

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]