Re: [Ltib] docs, man pages, headers, static libs in rootfs

[Fritz Mueller]

Hi Stuart,

I can see your point about NFS.

Most packages are in the GPP are already pretty good about not installing docs, 
etc.  There are a few outliers though (libpng for example I think?)  I'd like 
to contribute back some fixes for these, so I guess my question is which 
mechanism for addressing this would be most preferred?

I think it makes sense to control doc installation on a package-by-package 
basis, so the user doesn't have to manually sweep up with the deployment 
options at the end.  It seems that most packages don't install doc or man 
pages.  I guess one concrete question would be to fix up a package that doesn't 
have doc installation control in its configure script, do you think it would it 
be preferable to patch the makefile to not install the doc, or is there some 
sort of post-install hook in the spec file that could/should be used for this 
(I am relatively new to rpm.)

I was looking for examples of how the existing "remove man pages" deployment 
option was hooked up to see if I could piggy-back on that, but I didn't see how 
the set config variable was being used?

For static libs and headers, I'm thinking the best way to go is to provide 
explicit control of this via the LKC files, since some users may want build 
environments on their target systems and some not.

Thanks much -- its a really great and capable tool, I've enjoyed using it so 
far!

            --FritzM.


On Jun 2, 2010, at 12:47 AM, Stuart Hughes wrote:

> Hi Fritz,
> 
> To me at least it doesn't make sense to sanitise (cut-back) the NFS
> image.  This is intended to be everything so that builds of packages
> have all headers/libs etc available.  Also it allows derivatives (such
> as the RAMDISK/jffs2 types) to build filtered versions.
> 
> In LTIB if you build a non-NFS image, I think you have all the controls
> to removed docs/man/ etc that you need?
> 
> Regards, Stuart