Re: [PATCH] [RFC] gdb: add disable-docs option

[Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>]

On 25 Sep 2015 10:58, Romain Naour wrote:
> Le 24/09/2015 23:46, Doug Evans a Ãcrit :
> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> On 06 Sep 2015 11:37, Romain Naour wrote:
> >>> If makeinfo is not found in the system then the missing
> >>> script is used to warn the user.
> >>>
> >>> Before commit e30465112ed4c6320dd19107302057a5f7712cf2 the missing
> >>> script returned 0 after printing the message.
> >>>
> >>> Now, missing return 127 (command not found) to the Makefile and
> >>> the build fail.
> >>>
> >>> As suggested [1], add a new option to disable the documentation.
> >>
> >> aren't info pages shipped as part of the release ?  so even if makeinfo isn't
> >> available, it doesn't matter as the pages aren't regenerated on the user's
> >> system.  maybe you're applying patches to the source that cause the docs to be
> >> regenerated ?  if that's the case, i think disabling the docs entirely is the
> >> wrong way to go.  instead it should be skipping the regeneration step and
> >> installing the pages that already exist.  alternatively, you can adjust your
> >> build to update the timestamps of the generated files so the build won't try
> >> to regenerate them.
> > 
> > Agreed.
> > 
> > Sometimes releases have gone out with bad timestamps which need to be
> > fixed, but yeah there should be no need to disable doc generation.
> 
> Actually, I really want to disable the documentation entirely since all
> documentation installed by packages (like gdb) are automatically removed from
> the generated filesystem at the end of the build (see [1] and [2]).

your configure flag only impacts gdb though --  there are other
subdirs (like the binutils related ones) that also install docs.

in Gentoo, when we want to do this, we simply delete the /usr/share/...
dirs, or we set it to a place like --docdir=/nukeme and then rm that.

either way, i'm not sure the additional flags in this case are really
worth the maintenance overhead when installing+deleting after the fact
is trivial.  do you have data to show that the overhead you're saving
is significant ?
-mike

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature