[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Should a Guix package include documentation dependencies to be consi
From: |
Attila Lendvai |
Subject: |
Re: Should a Guix package include documentation dependencies to be considered complete? |
Date: |
Thu, 08 Dec 2022 02:57:41 +0000 |
> We currently include all the dependencies to run the tests, why not do
> the same for documentation building?
>
> Should we make it a requirement or goal to always package a given package's
> "documentation-inputs"?
i also lack guidance on this.
and i somewhat miss a "test-inputs" field to explicitly mark the dependencies
that are only needed to run the tests. this often doubles the native-inputs
dependencies of python packages.
then the infrastructure could be smartened up to not require those dependencies
when the tests are disabled for a package. it could serve as a temporary
bandaid to fix/upgrade a package while there are some issues with the
dependencies needed to run the tests.
i guess same applies to documentation.
some brainstorm follows: but what should be the way to control this for
documentation? package arguments, like #:tests? #f for tests? or some way to
mark some of the outputs as optional, and a way to request the optional
outputs? how would the latter apply to tests, that have no package output? is
the anomaly justified?
--
• attila lendvai
• PGP: 963F 5D5F 45C7 DFCD 0A39
--
“To every man is given the key to the gates of heaven; the same key opens the
gates of hell.
And so it is with science.”
— Richard Feynman (1918–1988)