[gentoo-dev] doc categories

[gentoo-dev] doc categories

[Geert Bevin]

Hi all,

currently there is an app-doc category in portage where documentation
ebuilds are put into. The problem is that alread a few of them are not
for applications (afs, qt) It would be a good idea imho to create a
number of differentiating doc categories.

My proposition would be something like : doc-app, doc-libs, ...

What do you all think of this?

Best regards,

Geert.

-- 
Geert Bevin
the Leaf sprl/bvba
"Use what you need"           Pierre Theunisstraat 1/47
http://www.theleaf.be         1030 Brussels
gbevin@theleaf.be             Tel & Fax +32 2 241 19 98

Re: [gentoo-dev] doc categories

[mbutcher]

There is also the case where the docs are put in with their respective 
applications, e.g. dev-python/python-docs

I would agree with Geert that there should be a nice structure for 
documents... finding the docs you want can take a little looking right now.

One good thing about moving docs directories: not many dependancies to fix! 
;-)

Matt

On Tuesday 08 January 2002 01:32 pm, you wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> currently there is an app-doc category in portage where documentation
> ebuilds are put into. The problem is that alread a few of them are not
> for applications (afs, qt) It would be a good idea imho to create a
> number of differentiating doc categories.
>
> My proposition would be something like : doc-app, doc-libs, ...
>
> What do you all think of this?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Geert.

Re: [gentoo-dev] doc categories

[tvon]

Speaking of which (which being docs for packages), is there any validity to
having a USE for 'docs' which determines weather or not varios package
docs are built along with the package they go with?  In my varios
explorations into writing ebuilds I have run into a few packages that come
bundled with docs that require some extra processing tool like Doxygen that
would be silly as a dependancy for the package.  Also, considering the
target audience for Gentoo, I would think there would be situations where
someone wanted to set the box up 'just so' and not care about or want the
docs installed......

Along the same lines, if I'm looking into developing with Python I would
most likely want to install the docs along with the main python package (in
this example), well...depending on how good they are...

So...just a tidbit for ya..

-Tom


On Tue, Jan 08, 2002, mbutcher wrote:
> There is also the case where the docs are put in with their respective 
> applications, e.g. dev-python/python-docs
> 
> I would agree with Geert that there should be a nice structure for 
> documents... finding the docs you want can take a little looking right now.
> 
> One good thing about moving docs directories: not many dependancies to fix! 
> ;-)
> 
> Matt
> 
> On Tuesday 08 January 2002 01:32 pm, you wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > currently there is an app-doc category in portage where documentation
> > ebuilds are put into. The problem is that alread a few of them are not
> > for applications (afs, qt) It would be a good idea imho to create a
> > number of differentiating doc categories.
> >
> > My proposition would be something like : doc-app, doc-libs, ...
> >
> > What do you all think of this?
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Geert.
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
> 

-- 
--

Re: [gentoo-dev] doc categories

[Aron Griffis]

tvon@etria.org wrote:	[Tue Jan 08 2002, 06:41:58PM EST]
> Speaking of which (which being docs for packages), is there any
> validity to having a USE for 'docs' which determines weather or not
> varios package docs are built along with the package they go with?  

This sounds like a really good idea to me.

Aron

[gentoo-dev] Security issues in Gentoo Linux

[Ilian Zarov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1092 bytes --]

  After reading the "Secure Gentoo" thread I decided to compare default
security level of gentoo to other linux distros. I noticed that some
executables have the setuid/setgid flag set though (AFAIK) they do not
need it for operation:
470327    4 drwxrwsr-x   2 root     games        4096 Jan  8 01:59
/var/lib/games
 32802  132 -rwxr-sr-x   1 root     kmem       129428 Jan  4 15:52
/usr/bin/make
131354  244 -rws--x--x   1 root     root       244820 Jan  6 19:47
/usr/X11R6/bin/xterm
131363 1612 -rws--x--x   1 root     root      1643760 Jan  6 19:47
/usr/X11R6/bin/XFree86 (we should use Xwrapper instead)
389942   12 -rwsr-xr-x   1 root     root         9772 Jan  8 01:58
/usr/sbin/gnome-pty-helper (chown'ing gnome-pty-helper to root:utmp,
chmod'ing it setgid and changing the permissions of the corresponding
log file is IMHO an appropriate way to let it log users)

Note: Because of my slow connection a few packages are installed, please
have a look at the output of find / \( -perm -02000 -o -perm -04000 \)
-ls on your system.


	Best Regards,
		Ilian Zarov

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] doc categories

[Tod M. Neidt]

On Tue, 2002-01-08 at 19:09, Aron Griffis wrote:
> tvon@etria.org wrote:	[Tue Jan 08 2002, 06:41:58PM EST]
> > Speaking of which (which being docs for packages), is there any
> > validity to having a USE for 'docs' which determines weather or not
> > varios package docs are built along with the package they go with?  
> 
> This sounds like a really good idea to me.
> 
Hi!

I have been thinking about this also. My thoughts.

Possible USE variables: dochtml, docpdf, docinfo
Most Gnu packages have all the documetation in the package tarball and
allow you to build to a variety of formats.  I personally prefer html
for reading locally in a browser.  Other people may want info for in
console and emacs and others pdf for printing.  Building pdf
documentation from source would require a PAPER environmental variable
to set the users preference, i.e. letter, A4, etc.  Most (but not all)
Linux Documentation Project stuff is available in sgml so it can be
built to preference also.  I have played around with this for some gnu
packages and python.  (Unfortunately, I have never been able to build
the python documentation from the source tarball)

Advantages:

1. fewer megabytes downloaded (especially nice for those on dial-up)
2. fewer megabytes archived on ibiblio
3. fewer doc ebuilds required in app-doc
4. user flexibility

Disadvantages:

1. added size and complication of ebuilds.
2. not all packages include extensive documentation (manuals, tutorials,
etc) in the source tarball or if they do, include prebuilt html and/or
pdf but not necessarily both. How to handle case where docpdf is set,
but only html is available.
3. program may build ok, but buggy documentation build could cause the
merge to fail.

tod


 

Re: [gentoo-dev] doc categories

[mbutcher]

Though it makes sense to be able to specify a prefered document format in the 
USE variables, a blanket 'docs' variable doesn't make a lot of sense to me -- 
at least not in the case of most of the documents I'm thinking of.

Going back to my previous example, it makes sense that Python documents be 
separate from the the Python interpreter. Why? Because everyone needs the 
interpreter (to run Portage), but only developers are going to use the 
tutorials and references.

On the other hand, just because I want the docs for Python, it doesn't mean 
that I also want the docs for Ruby, or the Linux HOWTO docs. Using a USE var 
would mean that I had to set it depending on what package I was installing.

To me, it makes sense to come up with a convention for splitting documents 
from applications, and making the docs easy to find.

Matt

On Tuesday 08 January 2002 07:33 pm, you wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-01-08 at 19:09, Aron Griffis wrote:
> > tvon@etria.org wrote:	[Tue Jan 08 2002, 06:41:58PM EST]
> >
> > > Speaking of which (which being docs for packages), is there any
> > > validity to having a USE for 'docs' which determines weather or not
> > > varios package docs are built along with the package they go with?
> >
> > This sounds like a really good idea to me.
>
> Hi!
>
> I have been thinking about this also. My thoughts.
>
> Possible USE variables: dochtml, docpdf, docinfo
> Most Gnu packages have all the documetation in the package tarball and
> allow you to build to a variety of formats.  I personally prefer html
> for reading locally in a browser.  Other people may want info for in
> console and emacs and others pdf for printing.  Building pdf
> documentation from source would require a PAPER environmental variable
> to set the users preference, i.e. letter, A4, etc.  Most (but not all)
> Linux Documentation Project stuff is available in sgml so it can be
> built to preference also.  I have played around with this for some gnu
> packages and python.  (Unfortunately, I have never been able to build
> the python documentation from the source tarball)
>
> Advantages:
>
> 1. fewer megabytes downloaded (especially nice for those on dial-up)
> 2. fewer megabytes archived on ibiblio
> 3. fewer doc ebuilds required in app-doc
> 4. user flexibility
>
> Disadvantages:
>
> 1. added size and complication of ebuilds.
> 2. not all packages include extensive documentation (manuals, tutorials,
> etc) in the source tarball or if they do, include prebuilt html and/or
> pdf but not necessarily both. How to handle case where docpdf is set,
> but only html is available.
> 3. program may build ok, but buggy documentation build could cause the
> merge to fail.
>
> tod
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev

Re: [gentoo-dev] doc categories

[Mikael Hallendal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 892 bytes --]

tis 2002-01-08 klockan 21.32 skrev Geert Bevin:
> Hi all,
> 
> currently there is an app-doc category in portage where documentation
> ebuilds are put into. The problem is that alread a few of them are not
> for applications (afs, qt) It would be a good idea imho to create a
> number of differentiating doc categories.
> 
> My proposition would be something like : doc-app, doc-libs, ...
> 
> What do you all think of this?

Hi!

I agree that app-doc is not a good place for all documents, not sure if
we need lots of doc-categories though. Perhaps just docs/ would do? If
we are doing a general rip-out of the docs in all packages perhaps we
need multiple doc-categories.

In that case both doc-* and *-doc would suite me fine.

Regards, 
  Mikael Hallendal

-- 

Mikael Hallendal
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Leader
CodeFactory AB, Stockholm, Sweden


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]