GNU bug report logs - #24105
git package misses man pages

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 24105 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 24105 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
To: bug-guix <at> gnu.org
Subject: git package misses man pages
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:46:23 +0200

Hello,

wondering why "git log --help" does not work, I thought that maybe there
was a different doc output. But the man pages are actually hidden in a
separate package called "git-manpages". This is surprising for the user.
Also, the resulting package is quite small with only 2.3 MB.

The reason for the separate package is given as this:
  ;; Granted, we could build the man pages from the 'git' package itself,
  ;; which contains the real source.  However, it would add a dependency on a
  ;; full XML tool chain, and building it actually takes ages.  So we use this
  ;; lazy approach.
Building will most of the time happen on the build farm, so the time it
takes should not be an issue. I suppose that the xml tool chain will only
be a native and not a normal input, so it should not be too much of a problem.

I suggest to include the man pages into the git package itself. If building
them is a real issue, adding a source and the build phase of git-manpages
to the git package itself could also be an option.

Thanks!

Andreas

Message #8 received at 24105 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
To: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
Cc: 24105 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#24105: git package misses man pages
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 13:10:59 -0400

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 02:46:23PM +0200, Andreas Enge wrote:
> Also, the resulting package is quite small with only 2.3 MB.

Not much, considering how often I consult these manpages.

> The reason for the separate package is given as this:
>   ;; Granted, we could build the man pages from the 'git' package itself,
>   ;; which contains the real source.  However, it would add a dependency on a
>   ;; full XML tool chain, and building it actually takes ages.  So we use this
>   ;; lazy approach.
> Building will most of the time happen on the build farm, so the time it
> takes should not be an issue. I suppose that the xml tool chain will only
> be a native and not a normal input, so it should not be too much of a problem.

Our git-manpages package doesn't build the manpages from source anyways.
It simply unpacks a tarball of pre-built manpages.

> I suggest to include the man pages into the git package itself. If building
> them is a real issue, adding a source and the build phase of git-manpages
> to the git package itself could also be an option.

I agree. If we continue to not build them from source, it won't make the
Git package any more "expensive". We could add the pre-built source
tarball as a native-input to the Git package, and re-use the unpack
phase from git-manpages.

I think the current arrangement offers a bad experience for new users
who can't find the manpages.

Message #11 received at 24105 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
Cc: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>, 24105 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#24105: git package misses man pages
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 15:46:29 +0200

Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name> skribis:

> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 02:46:23PM +0200, Andreas Enge wrote:

[...]

>> I suggest to include the man pages into the git package itself. If building
>> them is a real issue, adding a source and the build phase of git-manpages
>> to the git package itself could also be an option.
>
> I agree. If we continue to not build them from source, it won't make the
> Git package any more "expensive". We could add the pre-built source
> tarball as a native-input to the Git package, and re-use the unpack
> phase from git-manpages.

I agree too, this sounds like a good idea.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Message #14 received at 24105 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>, 24105 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#24105: git package misses man pages
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 15:03:02 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 03:46:29PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name> skribis:
> 
> > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 02:46:23PM +0200, Andreas Enge wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >> I suggest to include the man pages into the git package itself. If building
> >> them is a real issue, adding a source and the build phase of git-manpages
> >> to the git package itself could also be an option.
> >
> > I agree. If we continue to not build them from source, it won't make the
> > Git package any more "expensive". We could add the pre-built source
> > tarball as a native-input to the Git package, and re-use the unpack
> > phase from git-manpages.
> 
> I agree too, this sounds like a good idea.

I've attached a patch. Your thoughts?

[0001-gnu-git-Provide-man-pages-in-main-Git-package.patch (text/x-diff, attachment)]

Message #17 received at 24105 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
Cc: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>, 24105 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#24105: git package misses man pages
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 11:33:54 +0200

Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name> skribis:

> On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 03:46:29PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name> skribis:
>> 
>> > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 02:46:23PM +0200, Andreas Enge wrote:
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>> >> I suggest to include the man pages into the git package itself. If building
>> >> them is a real issue, adding a source and the build phase of git-manpages
>> >> to the git package itself could also be an option.
>> >
>> > I agree. If we continue to not build them from source, it won't make the
>> > Git package any more "expensive". We could add the pre-built source
>> > tarball as a native-input to the Git package, and re-use the unpack
>> > phase from git-manpages.
>> 
>> I agree too, this sounds like a good idea.
>
> I've attached a patch. Your thoughts?
>
> From 2407216eac19e5a7a3376efc497f7047dc0c8299 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
> Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 14:55:37 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: git: Provide man-pages in main Git package.
>
> * gnu/packages/version-control.scm (git-manpages): Remove variable.
> (git)[native-inputs]: Add GIT-MANPAGES.
> [arguments]: Add 'install-man-pages' phase.

LGTM!  :-)

Thank you!

Ludo'.

Message #22 received at 24105-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>, 24105-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#24105: git package misses man pages
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 22:42:54 -0400

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 11:33:54AM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name> skribis:
> > * gnu/packages/version-control.scm (git-manpages): Remove variable.
> > (git)[native-inputs]: Add GIT-MANPAGES.
> > [arguments]: Add 'install-man-pages' phase.
> 
> LGTM!  :-)

Pushed as d1cada045.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.