bug#33497: [PATCH] Re: bug#33497: Our CMake package has no documentation

[Marius Bakke]

Maxim Cournoyer <address@hidden> writes:

> Hello Marius!
>
> Sorry for the delay.
>
> Marius Bakke <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Hello!
>>
>> Now would be the time to get this in 'core-updates'.
>>
>> Maxim Cournoyer <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Maxim Cournoyer <address@hidden> writes:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Our CMake package lacks any documentation (manpage or other). Patch to
>>>> follow.
>>>>
>>>> Maxim
>>>
>>> Here's the patch to be merged in core-updates (or core-updates-next).
>>>
>>> From 07625983cd901c94e4ac25b157035c95e33a115e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Maxim Cournoyer <address@hidden>
>>> Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 01:39:54 -0500
>>> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: cmake: Generate the documentation.
>>>
>>> This fixes https://bugs.gnu.org/33497.
>>>
>>> * gnu/packages/cmake.scm (gnu): Use the (gnu package python) and
>>> (gnu packages texinfo) modules.
>>> (cmake)[configure]: Add arguments to configure so that manual pages, info 
>>> and
>>> HTML documentation is generated.
>>> [move-html-doc]: New phase.
>>> [native-inputs]: Add the native inputs required for building the
>>> documentation.
>>> [outputs]: Add a "doc" output.
>>
>> I'm not very comfortable with pulling python-sphinx into the dependency
>> closure of CMake, because then we can't update it or its dependencies
>> outside of the 'core-updates' cycle.  It could also cause circular
>> dependency issues down the road.
>>
>> Would it make sense to build the documentation as a separate package?
>> In that case it can go on the master branch.
>
> I don't like the idea of having a separate package for the documentation
> of cmake because it goes against the expectations of Guix users (package
> comes with its manpage, and extra doc can be installed as extra output
> of the same package).
>
> Maybe we could have a "cmake-minimal" package we'd keep hidden and use
> by default as part of the cmake-build-system, which wouldn't include the
> doc, and the regular, user facing cmake would be the one in this patch?

This sounds reasonable to me.  Can you send a patch?  :-)

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature