-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 198
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Use crate documentation url #1406
Comments
@bilelmoussaoui this looks like a duplicate of #125, does it? Or am I missing something? |
Ah indeed, my bad I didn't notice it, sorry for the noise. I will copy over my comment to the other issue Thanks @syphar :) |
I don't think this is a duplicate. It's very reasonable for the link to go to the other url if the build fails. I don't think we should use the link if it succeeds, since not all documentation URLs are actually rustdoc pages. |
@bilelmoussaoui Assuming that gets implemenred, if the build succeeds but with poorer quality docs, you could add a cargo feature which just gives a compile error 😆 and then that fails the build and docs.rs links to the full docs. |
Alternatively, #[cfg_attr(include_docs, lgpl_docs::embed(AboutDialog))]
pub struct AboutDialog; or with 1.54 even a #[cfg_attr(include_docs, doc = lgpl_docs::embed!(AboutDialog))]
pub struct AboutDialog; |
The majority of build failures are transient issues in the package. I don't think we would want to default to auto-redirecting to the |
In the case of various crates we have for glib based libraries bindings, the documentations generated with a simple
cargo doc
don't contain any documentations due to licensing issues. As we can't "overwrite" the source files during the doc stage, because the files are read only, we opted for deploying our docs using CI ourselves.Sadly, now once we will have a release, people looking for say
gtk4
in docs.rs will end up with pretty poor quality docs instead of the one specified in Cargo.toml's documentation url.I wonder if there's a possibility to make the docs.rs url point to that in such case instead of re-building the docs as part of docs.rs, it could be even something to opt-in for somehow.
See https://docs.rs/gtk/0.9.2/gtk/ for example instead of https://gtk-rs.org/docs/gtk/
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: