-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 As stated in my previous message, this is the way to generate the needed Doxyfile:
cd doc (inside the tarball-basedir ) qmake ( produce Makefile ) make ( build ./doxyfilter ) ./doxyfilter -g ( generates Doxyfile ) after this some sed-magic to enable docs in LaTex and man-page format: sed -i -e's/GENERATE_LATEX.*= NO/GENERATE_LATEX = YES/'\ - -e's/GENERATE_MAN.*= NO/GENERATE_MAN = YES/' ./Doxyfile use doxygen to generate them docs: doxygen ./Doxyfile go back to tarball-basedir: cd .. done! Cheers, Björn Am 19.04.2012 15:57, schrieb Thibaut Paumard: > Le 19/04/12 15:18, Boris Pek a écrit : >>>> I found that in package qxmpp is used HTML documentation from >>>> upstream tarball. This documentation was not generated by >>>> doxygen during build process. Should I make a bug report? If >>>> yes, which section of Debian Policy I should point to? >>> >>> Well, there's nowhere in the DFSG or copyright (i'm assuming) >>> that says that it must be in some format X. If the original >>> source is, in fact, HTML, there's no problem. > [...] >> >> Thank you for a reply. >> >> Perhaps I wrote unclear. In few steps: 1) There is some HTML >> documentation [1] in upstream tarball. 2) This documentation was >> generated using Doxygen. 3) This documentation was packaged in >> package libqxmpp-doc as is. 4) I can not find in tarball the >> necessary sources for Doxygen and instructions how to generate >> this documentation manually. >> >> The question is: should I make a bug report in this case? >> > > Hi, > > The source are the .h and .cpp files, so they are included. What I > don't see is the DoxyFile (giving a quick glance to the source > package). From the timestamps of the html files, I'd say that they > have been generated by the maintainer just before uploading > (actually, they have been generated 7 minutes after the changlogg > entry was last finalized). > > I believe it is generally accepted that every file that can be > (re)generated during the build process should be, for various > reasons. In particular: - we must make sure that the sources we > ship are the right ones from the generated files; - we must be able > to generate the files from their source using only Debian/main. > > However I can't find anywhere in the Policy that it's an actual > requirement to re-generate this kind of files at build-time. > > So yes, I think you can file a bug requesting that the maintainer > builds the doc as part of "dpkg-buildpackage", but I can't find a > clear-cut requirement stated in the policy. > > If you can provide a patch, all the better. > > Best regards, Thibaut. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iF4EAREIAAYFAk+QHQwACgkQ3u1SIc8s7PUpKQEAo/vcIjppK4CBYbtHfqMGD4nK 8U2WiR8HUki95P+AAM0BAMZi2+kI0UI3azjrpNMrfhWmGXPzb7uNDrHxmC2xwuU0 =uwKg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- 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/4f901d0c.2050...@googlemail.com
