https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047418 --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks Christopher for reviewing the package so soon. (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #2) > One question before "+", I think the doc is very large, is it better to add > -doc subpackage? I'm not sure if we should do this for haskell package, > please tell me. Good question. $ du -sh /usr/share/doc/ghc/html/libraries/webkit/ /usr/lib64/ghc-7.6.3/webkit-0.12.5.1/ 12M /usr/share/doc/ghc/html/libraries/webkit/ 49M /usr/lib64/ghc-7.6.3/webkit-0.12.5.1/ I admit the size of the docs here is not negligible. To be honest it is partly a packaging convenience/simplification, since the package docs can cross-reference docs of dependencies they need to be BRs, so subpackaging docs effectively doubles the number of BRs in each package, which also increases the time for downloading and installing. The previous version of the Haskell Guidelines (2011) actually recommend having a doc subpackage, but I felt they were generally an overhead, so this was dropped in the revised Guidelines. Generally the installed size of generated devel docs is still small compared to the total of the devel files, and they compress well. Perhaps we need a more precise criterion for deciding when docs are too big to be bundled in the devel package: from the packaging maintenance PoV it would be simpler to make it all or none though, but perhaps cabal-rpm could work out which library packages have a doc subpackage or not. At least since we don't rebuild the doc index after each devel package install, the install/uninstall overhead of docs is not heavy anymore. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review