Why not just do GCC docs in a way similar to GNU Make? Separately build docs from separate source package, and upload to non-free? (with regular package names)
2012/9/27 Guo Yixuan <culu....@gmail.com>: > 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-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50647c42.6050...@gmail.com > -- 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/CALL-Q8yR3mViwZTaC7QhBAP0=k8ps8ao39hcpfskg7buxkf...@mail.gmail.com
