Hi Felix, Le 01/06/2015 21:00, Felix Natter a écrit :
> I am packaging insubstantial (flamingo/substance/trident) and am > planning to provide -doc packages for each (library) package: Thank you for taking of these packages. Regarding the *-java-doc packages, considering their extremely low popcon I wouldn't bother too much with them. It slows the builds when the javadoc links are resolved and uses a significant amount of space on the mirrors. If nobody uses them I don't think it's worth the trouble. > --> So my question is: Shall I try to fix all those problems or filter > this and only include the javadoc? > > I tend to only ship javadoc as fixing the html docs (www/**) will result > in quite broken (html-)documentation, is high effort and using only > javadoc is what my predecessors did. > --> What do you think? I'd stick to the javadoc only too. > Another unrelated question: > > "W: <package>: new-package-should-close-itp-bug" > --> I had to start from scratch because the new insubstantial bundles > all 7 libraries (see above) in one upstream source package. > --> shall I file an ITP for this or create a dummy changelog entry with > gives credit to the individual substance/flamingo/trident packagers > (is there an example of this)? Filing an ITP is recommended. As for crediting the packagers, you can probably mention them in debian/copyright if you reused some bits from the other packages. Emmanuel Bourg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5572f055.8010...@apache.org
