Matthias Clasen <mclasen(a)redhat.com> writes:
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 15:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't like Proposal #2 a bit. The particular case that is going to
> bite me is that this policy requires me to rebuild documentation files
> (.pdfs, etc) from source. Which is possible, but it vastly expands the
> BuildRequires footprint of the package, to say nothing of the build
> time.
Seconded. This will cause multilib conflicts in many packages, due
to
randomness introduced in doc builds, such as generated ids, etc.
Hadn't thought of that, but it's a good point. Another issue is that
expanding BuildRequires to cover doc toolchains is likely to create
cases of circular build dependencies that don't exist today. Those
situations are a *serious* PITA for the maintainers involved :-(
... so we should avoid mandating that for marginal reasons.
regards, tom lane