[Numpy-discussion] missing doc dir in the official tarball

David Cournapeau david@ar.media.kyoto-u.ac...
Sat Dec 20 06:01:25 CST 2008

Gael Varoquaux wrote:
> For Mayavi/ETS we put both. Docs are very important, and we feared people
> having difficulties building them, as the doc build tools and build chain
> isn't as mature as the rest of the build chain.

Yes, I don't think anyone is arguing for users to build the doc. When
distributing binaries, we should ideally put the built docs along with
the installer itself (it is easy on mac os x with .dmg; we could for
example simply put the installer itself together with the doc in a zip
file for windows - anyone with XP and above can read zip out of the box).

> Of course, for debian packaging the problem is different, but that's only
> a fraction of our users.

I built the doc, and it looks like putting the sources of the doc +
html  + pdf will more or less multiply the size of the tarball by 4
(from ~ 1.5 M to 6 M). Maybe once we have a system like python.org such
as for each release we have the doc at the corresponding version, we
could just skip shipping the built doc in the source tarball, and only
provide it with the binaries.

I think it is important to have the built docs at least for the binaries
installers - but it does not seem as important for the sources, assuming
the user can find it quickly on the website of course.



More information about the Numpy-discussion mailing list