Warren Turkal wrote: > On Wednesday 07 March 2007 17:47, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: >> * possibility to build an arch:all documentation package > > The maintainer is encouraging the use of the pre-built docs instead of > building them from the texinfo sources. Would there be an issue with doing > that?
It looks like there was a general consensus in a thread from 2005 [0] that as long as the source code for the docs is shipped in the source package, it is OK to ship the pre-built docs in the binary package(s). Someone in that thread suggested [1] adding a target in debian/rules that could build the docs even if that target was never called (except by hand from time to time, to make sure that the docs are still autobuildable). [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2005/02/msg00131.html [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2005/02/msg00134.html If you want to do this, most of the clean target I suggested earlier should be removed, since sbuild and dpkg-buildpackage always run debian/rules clean first. >> * whether or not this is the same as the "netcdf-doc" referenced by #321337 > > It seems to be. However, netcdf-doc hasn't been updated in ages. Hmm. Do you think that the FTP masters should be asked to remove the netcdf-doc source package from unstable once the new netcdf is there? If so, I guess there is no problem with including a netcdf-doc binary package built from the netcdf source package. The existing netcdf-doc source package is most unlikely to end up on the autobuilders (especially now that I realize it is of course arch:all) before netcdf 3.6.2 is in unstable :-) >From your other email: > On Wednesday 07 March 2007 17:47, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: >> 1) I have to tell you that I made an error in the clean target I >> suggested for debian/rules: [snip] >> ... specifically, all of the $ signs above should be changed to $$ in >> order to escape them from Make. My apologies for that! > > Fixed in pre4 @ [1]. > > [1]http://www.penguintechs.org/~wt/debian/netcdf/ Assuming you'd like me to look at the newer -1~pre5 version there instead? Looks fine, except there are still a lot of HTML files in the diff.gz. This rule in the debian/rules clean target: rm -f man/*.html doesn't get them all since most are in subdirectories of man. Try this instead for instance: find . -name '*.html' -exec rm -f {} \; # remove now-empty directories find . -depth -type d -empty -exec rmdir {} \; It would make sense to delete these in a clean target even if you decide to use the docs prebuilt by upstream, since these HTML files are *not* present in the orig.tar.gz and you don't install them to the .debs in any case. best regards, -- Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Physics Department WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/ Princeton University GPG: public key ID 4F83C751 Princeton, NJ 08544 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
