Hi, On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 10:11:55PM -0300, Marco T�lio Gontijo e Silva wrote: > Em Seg, 2005-04-25 �s 23:42 +0200, Osamu Aoki escreveu: > > Changed "has" to "provides" and added footnote. What do you think? > > > > I changed to "provides" since some package generates these from SGML or > > TeX source file sets. So we may not be just copying files. > > > > Also this can be done with script within build target of debian/rules > > file to. So many ways to do this. So I want to keep it generic with > > minimum hints. > > I think that the problem is in not saying anywhere in the whole > maint-guide how the .html files were installed. Isn't the propose of the > maint-guide to explicitly explain how the gentoo example package was > generated? Somewhere, the guy that wants to package gentoo or any other > package with .html docs will have to install it.
Initilally, your mesage made sense but where in the maint-guide explicitly explain how the binary commands are created and installed. I think this document asumes the reader to know how to install tar-ball under TARGETDIR=/usr/local. So these basics are not explained. > If someone have a package with .html docs and want to learn how to > debianize it, maint-guide will fail on teaching, because it says about > registering but it doesn't says about installing. And installing is a > prerequisite for registering. I do not think Debian packages random html files. It usually packages SGML/XML/LaTEx generated html files. I know some package use upstream html files for the sake of reducing dependency. But those maintainer knows alternatives too. > Isn't it illogical? Teaching how to register a file that you haven't > teach how to install? It is not illogical. But who should write it in which part of document. Yes, I am talking about byurden of efforts in volunteer project. Also what is the priority for the shortcomming of the document. For me, if I have time, I would rather give more detailed guidance on how to package auto-tools based packages. Although I do mostly documentation things, Debian's core competence is binary packages with commands not documents. So unless I get very brief and good alternative text on your line of "wishlist", I can not include it. Otherwise, I think my recent change proposal may bew not worth doing it if you do not care it as a good improvement. > That's what my bug was about. So now is your time to propose a solid alternative text :-) Do folowings: $ sudo apt-get update $ apt-get source maint-guide $ ls maint-* $ cd maint-guide* $ mc # edit files Send me your text proposal. I think Debian BTS should be used to improve Debian. Osamu
