https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149850
Bug ID: 1149850 Summary: ghc-compiler includes whole documentation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: ghc Assignee: petersen@redhat.com Reporter: mcepl@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: bos@serpentine.com, haskell-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, petersen@redhat.com
Description of problem:
From the Packagin guidelines:
“[…] Or if there's a lot of documentation, consider putting it into a subpackage. In this case, it is recommended to use *-doc as the subpackage name, and Documentation as the value of the Group tag.”
Because of failure to do this, ghc-compiler has 80+MB in /usr/share/doc/ghc-compiler/html
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): ghc-compiler.x86_64 0:7.6.3-26.fc21
How reproducible: 100%
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149850
--- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- (In reply to Matěj Cepl from comment #0)
ghc-compiler has 80+MB in /usr/share/doc/ghc-compiler/html
I assume you mean /usr/share/doc/ghc/html/libraries ?
While that directory is owned by ghc-compiler most of the content in there is from various libraries.
At a minimum, ghc-compiler pulls in ghc-base-devel which contains:
15M base-4.6.0.1/ 2.5M ghc-prim-0.3.0.0/ 392K integer-gmp-0.5.0.0/
ghc-compiler does own /usr/share/doc/ghc/html/libraries/doc-index-All.html (21M) which is a ghost file generated if then ghc-doc-index cronjob is installed.
(ghc-ghc-devel's doc is the largest: 62M)
I guess you're really suggesting that Haskell libraries use subpackages for their docs. That is quite a big packaging structural change but maybe it is worth doing for F22. The downside to that is that docs of deps are used when generating lib docs so we need to add BRs for all the docs packages too across 280+ packages so it is not a completely trivial change but it is possible.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149850
--- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- A smaller option might be to move all the docs from ghc to a separate doc subpackages perhaps, then maybe ghc-rpm-macros could Requires ghc-doc. That would at least address your immediate complaint even if it doesn't face the wider problem.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149850
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mcepl@redhat.com Flags| |needinfo?(mcepl@redhat.com)
--- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- I am kind of tempted to close this wontfix...
Any further comments?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149850
Matěj Cepl mcepl@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(mcepl@redhat.com) |
--- Comment #5 from Matěj Cepl mcepl@redhat.com --- (In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #1)
(In reply to Matěj Cepl from comment #0)
ghc-compiler has 80+MB in /usr/share/doc/ghc-compiler/html
I assume you mean /usr/share/doc/ghc/html/libraries ?
Yes, sorry.
While that directory is owned by ghc-compiler most of the content in there is from various libraries.
Partially, but still
ghc-compiler x86_64 7.6.3-18.3.el7 epel 15 M
matej@mitmanek: ~$ du -hs /usr/share/doc/ghc/html/ 20M /usr/share/doc/ghc/html/ matej@mitmanek: ~$
(When installing just ghc-compiler on a computer where no ghc-* package was).
At a minimum, ghc-compiler pulls in ghc-base-devel which contains:
15M base-4.6.0.1/ 2.5M ghc-prim-0.3.0.0/ 392K integer-gmp-0.5.0.0/
So probably /usr/share/doc/ghc/html should be owned by ghc-base not ghc-compiler, shouldn't it?
I guess you're really suggesting that Haskell libraries use subpackages for their docs. That is quite a big packaging structural change but maybe it is worth doing for F22. The downside to that is that docs of deps are used when generating lib docs so we need to add BRs for all the docs packages too across 280+ packages so it is not a completely trivial change but it is possible.
Couldn't this be somehow scripted?
Anyway, being bound to install tens of megabytes of completely useless documentation just because I want to run rpm --rebuild pandoc*.src.rpm is really crappy user experience, which really doesn't makes me interested in further investigation of the Haskell universe.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149850
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Component|ghc |cabal-rpm Version|22 |rawhide Summary|ghc-compiler includes whole |RFE: subpackage Haskell |documentation |haddock documentation
--- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- (In reply to Matěj Cepl from comment #5)
So probably /usr/share/doc/ghc/html should be owned by ghc-base not ghc-compiler, shouldn't it?
It could be perhaps - there are still various shared files under libraries/. Let me think more about it.
I guess you're really suggesting that Haskell libraries use subpackages for their docs. That is quite a big packaging structural change but maybe it is worth doing for F22. The downside to that is that docs of deps are used when generating lib docs so we need to add BRs for all the docs packages too across 280+ packages so it is not a completely trivial change but it is possible.
Anyway, being bound to install tens of megabytes of completely useless documentation just because I want to run rpm --rebuild pandoc*.src.rpm is really crappy user experience, which really doesn't makes me interested in further investigation of the Haskell universe.
Thanks for the feedback. I think you're the first person to have really complained about this since we dropped doc subpackages for Haskell libraries in F14. :) The main reason for doing that was to simplify the packaging but I take your point: probably not many people use the doc files anyway since they are mostly all online anyway. Another radical approach would be to drop them completely but I think it is good to have them available for offline access.
I will try to consider addressing this for F23.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149850
--- Comment #7 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Changes needed to cabal-rpm to address general packages and to ghc-rpm-macros for ghc and haskell-platform.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149850
--- Comment #8 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- I opened https://github.com/juhp/cabal-rpm/issues/53 for this.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149850
Matěj Cepl mcepl@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mcepl@cepl.eu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149850
Bugzilla account termination pnt-expunge@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|mcepl@redhat.com |
haskell-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org