On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Nikita V. Youshchenko <yo...@debian.org> wrote: >> > I will try to look sometime soon, but can't promise when. > > Hello Samuel > > The gcc-doc thing you've done looks great, however it is incomplete. > > Complete solution consists of gcc-doc-defaults package [contrib], and > several gcc-X.Y.doc-non-dfsg [non-free], that all must match each other. > There should be gcc-X.Y.doc-non-dfsg for each gcc-X.Y that is in debian > main, and only one of those must provide gcc-doc-base package. > > Upload must be done for all components in sync (perhaps together with > filing RM requests for obsolete source packages). Uploading only part of > these will leave things in broken state. E.g. several source packages will > provide gcc-doc-base binary package, or gcc-doc-defaults will provide > packages with broken depends and/or symlinks.
I see. > 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! > Maybe this could be moved to git.debian.org. > > > 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.) > Also, if you convert to 3.0 (quilt), why still mentioning dpatch in > README.source? That was an accident. > *) 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: * Take the debian/ directory from "gcc-X.Y", post-processing the > *) [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! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cajyzjmfr77wjg6muubi6exovzpswqa7zpodl+60+uu_qsu9...@mail.gmail.com
