Rick Jones <rick.jon...@hp.com> writes:
> Why is a good question. I am the messenger in this case. I'm not sure
> that the .ps actually makes successfully for the netperf manual, but I
> do not know that to be the reason for the request. I have been told
> there has to be some special handling for the .ps in the Debian package
> building of netperf. That is all Dark Magic to me though.
There doesn't seem to be any special handling of the documentation
component of netperf in the current Debian packaging apart from an
additional make rule to build pdf and html versions of the manual and a
decision not to ship the info files in the binary package.
The only special handling that I see in the Debian packaging is:
build/netperf::
cd doc && make netperf.pdf netperf.html
binary-post-install/netperf::
rm -rf debian/$(cdbs_curpkg)/usr/share/info
cp doc/netperf.pdf
debian/$(cdbs_curpkg)/usr/share/doc/netperf/netperf.pdf
cp doc/netperf.html
debian/$(cdbs_curpkg)/usr/share/doc/netperf/netperf.html
which implements installation of the PDF and HTML files instead of the
info files (which is the Automake default). I have no opinion on the
wisdom of doing that, having not looked at anything about the software
before just now, but I don't see any way in which changing the rules for
building PostScript files would change anything about that code or
simplify it.
However, I could be missing something; Erik Wenzel <e...@debian.org> is
the Debian package maintainer and may have more context.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
