New package: python3-doc-3.14.3.

[mmdbalkhi]

Testing the changes

• I tested the changes in this PR: YES

New package

• This new package conforms to the package requirements: YES

cc: @ahesford

[ahesford]

The commit message doesn't match what you're doing, which should be more like

python3: add documentation subpackage

I have a couple of broader issues. First, I'm not sure whether we should bother with this at all, when all we end up doing is fetching and unpacking a tarball of HTML for users. Second, even if there is enough merit to offer a package, I don't know that we should complicate the existing python3 template to do so. This is a completely separate packaging process for entirely different distfiles, so it would be better served by a dedicated template.

[mmdbalkhi]

I agree that it shouldn’t complicate the existing python3 template. A separate python3-doc template makes more sense since the documentation comes from different distfiles and has a completely separate packaging process.
I still think the package itself can be useful in some cases (for example for offline documentation). My original idea was to build the docs with make -C Doc so the version would always match the Python source, but that introduces a large dependency chain (python3-sphinx, etc). Because of that, using the upstream HTML(and possibly text/texinfo) docs tarball is probably the simplest approach. It keeps the package lightweight while still providing version‑matched documentation.

[ahesford]

I've given this more thought, but fail to see that the value offered by this package is worth its addition. For one thing, this is tied to a specific patch version and is another thing we'd have to sync with the main package. For another, there's a prominent download link for an archive of the content right on the Python documentation site. Users who want to unpack the archive can just do it themselves.