Hi, On 02/15/2012 04:02 AM, Samuel Bronson wrote: > On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Samuel Bronson <naes...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Nikita V. Youshchenko <yo...@debian.org> >> wrote: > >>> In good old days when I had time and motivation to maintain gcc-doc, I've >>> used git repos to managed entire thing. >>> I've just created externally-available mirror for those - please check >>> http://yoush.homelinux.org:8079/git >>> >>> Could you please clone these repos, and reformat your work into this >>> format? >>> IMO this format greatly helps to keep things consistent. >> >> I can certainly try! > > Okay, I've cloned your gcc-doc repository and added my changes: > > git clone https://github.com/SamB/debian-gcc-doc > > (Or open it in your browser, or ...) > > I'm holding off on updating the 4.4 control files and the -defaults > packages for the moment: I want to streamline the "new X.Y" process a > bit more first. > >>> Maybe this could be moved to git.debian.org. > > Yes, that sounds like a good idea. Then I could add the Vcs-*: fields > to debian/control. Of course, there will probably be a lot to update > in README.source then... > >>> As for the rest, here are several more comments: >>> >>> *) I don't really understand the workflow of gcc-doc-non-dfgs converted to >>> 3.0 (quilt) format. >>> >>> With old format, there was debian/patches, managed by dpatch, with part of >>> patches managed by hands, and part managed by a perl script. Running the >>> script altered debian/patches/* files, including series file. But isn't >>> this unsafe for 3.0 (quilt) format since it will break metadata in .pc/ >>> directory? >> >> Hmm. Perhaps the script should simply refuse to run whenever there is >> a .pc directory? (It seems that dpkg-source removes this after >> unapplying the patches.) > > In any case, most of this is changed very little; the script just gets > to be a bit shorter since the patches no longer have to be shell > scripts. > >>> Also, if you convert to 3.0 (quilt), why still mentioning dpatch in >>> README.source? >> >> That was an accident. > > I've corrected this now. > >>> *) Looks like your command line for patch convertion script is much shorter >>> that in was in previous times. How did you check which patches to apply >>> and which not? >> >> Well, I grepped the GCC package's debian/patches for anything that >> changed .texi files, and looked through the debian/rules.patch to see >> which of those seemed to be applied for Debian builds on any >> architecture (in that alternate universe where >> GFDL_INVARIANT_FREE=no). >> >>> Actually I've looked at updating gcc-doc during new year holidays, and >>> stopped and postponed it exactly at this point. It was unclear what >>> patches to apply, looked like some procedure/policy was needed, and I >>> could not think your such a policy at that time. >>> >>> The idea was to check what patches are applied for each of in-debian >>> architectures, and apply doc changes for all of those. This could likey be >>> automated, e.g. by writing a makefile that will include debian/rules2 from >>> gcc package, and then use vars set by that to print list of applied >>> patches; some tricks with var-setting could do this for all archs. >> >> Hmm, not a terrible idea. I still think the *very* cleanest thing >> would probably be to build "gcc-X.Y-doc-non-dfsg" like this, though: > > [Oops, I forgot to finish this bit:] > > * Take the debian/ directory from "gcc-X.Y" > + uncomment the documentation patches if necessary > + replace debian/control with one that only builds the documentation > packages > + arrange for "GFDL_INVARIANT_FREE=no" to be set > * Put a pristine upstream tarball in the root of the tree in place of > the stripped one that gcc-X.Y uses. > > (Of course, this would turn the package into little more than a script > to generate the *actual* packages.) > > However, as I'm always low on diskspace, I'm a bit reluctant to > actually *try* this. > >>> *) [minor but still] it looks a bit unfair that there is only your >>> signature under README.source, while large part of the text was written by >>> me :). >> >> I agree with you that this was a very rude of the README.Debian Emacs >> mode to do this. I can understand updating the date; removing your >> name, not so much. Though, it also obviously shouldn't simply update >> the date next to your name. So I'm not really sure what it *should* >> do... >> >> If you can think what it should do, maybe we should open a bug against >> /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/dpkg-dev-el/readme-debian.el to request the >> change? >> >>>> 2. In contemplating putting debian/copyright in DEP-5 format, I've >>>> realized that I'm not sure of the exact copyright/licensing status of >>>> anything in the debian/ directory, except: >>> >>> See debian/copyright from the old packages. Everything non-autogenerated >>> under debian/ was stated to be GPL; I don't object changing that if >>> needed. >> >> No, there's certainly no need to change that. (Of course, I would not >> object if they were to be put under the Expat license. :-) >> >> P.S. I apologize for returning the slow response time! > > I've now actually made an attempt at putting debian/copyright in DEP5 > form. There are a couple of holes in it still, but that's mostly > because of upstream problems, and the holes have been there all along > anyway. >
How's it going now? Samuel has done much work in packaging gcc-4.[67]-doc, while there doesn't appear to be any real uploads. I've updated debian/4.7 branch in my personal git repo at Alioth, you can check it out: git clone git://git.debian.org/users/yixuan-guest/gcc-doc.git Regards, Guo Yixuan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50647c42.6050...@gmail.com
