Additional package deps to doc builds

Internals & Design
1

I am wondering what is the general feeling about adding additional packages as dependencies to the documentation build.

Generally, we’ve been very conservative in Documenter, since every additional dependency is something that can break and, in turn, break the Base docs every time something slightly non-trivial is getting merged into master. However, that might not really be relevant in the post-1.0 era, especially since the package versions are pinned.

The question is prompted by:

  • In this PR, @visr makes a reasonable case to add JSON.jl as a dep. The package is pretty lightweight, standalone and, as Kristoffer pointed out, already a dependency of the daily benchmarks.

  • Related to that PR, it might be nice to have HTTP.jl as a dependency too, but it is quite a bit bigger and would also bring in IniFile, MbedTSL, BinaryProvider as downstream dependencies.

3 Likes
2

I’d say that JSON.jl is no big deal. HTTP.jl maybe more so. As a datapoint, MbedTLS is currently broken on some platforms (https://github.com/JuliaWeb/MbedTLS.jl/issues/193) and has been that way now for a month.

4 Likes
3

Agree with that: JSON yes, HTTP probably no.

4 Likes