Re: [PATCH] gnu: unison: Add "doc" output.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Eric Bavier <address@hidden> skribis:

> On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 23:11:07 +0100
> address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) wrote:
>
>> Eric Bavier <address@hidden> skribis:
>> 
>> > +(define (unison-doc ext version hash)
>> > +  (origin
>> > +    (method url-fetch)
>> > +    (uri (string-append "https://www.seas.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/unison/";
>> > +                        "download/releases/unison-" version "/unison-"
>> > +                        version "-manual." ext))
>> > +    (sha256 (base32 hash))))
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>> > +     `(("doc-pdf"
>> > +        ,(unison-doc "pdf" version
>> > +                     
>> > "0y5mywjn352nw4wqli94gnc5vn1f72g56jqqk1nqajz0ark998nb"))
>> > +       ("doc-ps"
>> > +        ,(unison-doc "ps" version
>> > +                     
>> > "11awy1xxhmckwnx42hllmngmx8q4ck18vpwpgfqqhj0x8vx0b3ha"))
>> > +       ("doc-html"
>> > +        ,(unison-doc "html" version
>> > +                     
>> > "06myrpv067j5ffm265fm0a83gm41j9bv3ps3yiyb1hqgfy1qy3ah"))))
>> 
>> Could we instead build them from source?
>
> Possibly.  The documentation source is not available in the download
> tarball, only in the developer svn repository, so we could do an svn
> fetch of that.  Would that be alright?

Sure.

>> I understand that building the PDF/PS would require an extra dependency
>> on TeX Live.  This could be:
>> 
>>   1. ignored, on the grounds that people with substitutes enabled will
>>      not have to download TeX Live; or:
>> 
>>   2. addressed by having only the HTML documentation built, on the
>>      grounds the HTML is more appropriate for on-screen reading.
>> 
>> WDYT?
>
> Option 1 might be fine.  The 'coq' package also requires both texlive
> and hevea for its documentation.

OK!

Ludo’.