Dne 20. 11. 19 v 22:00 John M. Harris Jr napsal(a): > On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 2:19:22 AM MST Vít Ondruch wrote: >> Dne 20. 11. 19 v 0:52 John M. Harris Jr napsal(a): >> >>> >>>> -- trimming functionality and/or moving functionality to sub-packages >>>> or separate package. >>> For what purpose? Can you provide an example of a package which would >>> benefit from this, that does not already do something similar? >>> >>> >> >> For example Kernel is using AsciiDoc to generate some documentation. Is >> the documentation really required? > Yes, documentation is really required. Documentation might not be required for packages which are never published, not even in CRB, not for packages we don't support. Anyway, you have deliberately left half of the paragraph out. To my point, you can for example compare booth package in Fedora and CentOS: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/booth/blob/master/f/booth.spec#_83 https://git.centos.org/rpms/booth/blob/c8/f/SPECS/booth.spec#_87 or see the changelog of openscap: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/openscap/c/7e7bbfca218133e5c5ced1d84bd8e3ca0f44625d This was the effort to replace various AsciiDoc implementation just by single implementation. Along these lines, the migration of AsciiDoc to Python3 was also part of this work: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/asciidoc/c/ee020b430cc20c1117875d6668c57488bd86f5a2?branch=master On other places, we are using different tools to generate documentation: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/espeak-ng/blob/master/f/espeak-ng.spec#_11 https://git.centos.org/rpms/espeak-ng/blob/c8/f/SPECS/espeak-ng.spec#_11 > > This is actually not the case, that the kernel is using asciidoc to generate > documentation. This hasn't been the case since Fedora 21, when somebody > randomly decided to remove documentation, because "you can find the > documentation online". > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223200 Well, there is probably more documentation then just kernel-doc, dunno. The dependency on asciidoc is in kernel.spec, although I am not sure if it is really enabled: https://git.centos.org/rpms/kernel/blob/c8/f/SPECS/kernel.spec#_307 > >> I guess these are the issues Troy had on his mind, because this is >> precisely the work we do when we take Fedora and try to produce RHEL. > Not that it matters, but do you mean to tell me that RHEL removes > documentation for certain packages? Luckily, I've not come across this in my > own use of RHEL at work, but that would be very surprising.. > >> At the end, this might boil down to dropping some AsciiDoc >> implementation from Fedora or may be not. There is not definitive >> answer, but we should always reevaluate our options. > I fail to see how dropping an implementation was ever in question, and what > would lead to that line of thought.. Removing packages at random makes no > sense. > You might not know, but asciidoc package is more or less dead upstream AFAIK. So far we keep it on life support, because this was easier to do so. But in alternative reality, it could also be that the result of such work would be replacement of all dependencies on asciidoc by something else and asciidoc slower or faster death in Fedora (this might be what you "Removing packages at random"). Vít _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
