On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 05:08:32PM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 10:53:58 +0200, Martin Quinson wrote:
> > you uploaded a new version of gtk-doc the 2003-06-19 (maintainer:
> > debian-qa) to fix a few bugs, but you forgot the #196073 one, which were
> > marked pending by the maintainer before orphaning, and not fixed.
>
> I didn't forget it. I was concerned only about the issues effecting the
> libgsf package which I maintain.
Ok, I'll have to find another DD interested in qa to upload this then.
> > Could you please reupload this package with the needed dependency ?
>
> No. Reading #196073 it talks about packages that use both gtk-doc-tools and
> automake at build time and don't declare their build dependencies properly.
> IMO that's a bug in those packages, not in gtk-doc-tools.
Not exactly. gtk-doc-tools is unusable in projects (not [only] package, user
projects) when gnome-common isn't installed because you have to put
GNOME_GTKDOC_CHECK in your configure.{ac,in}. And this macro is declared in
files from gnome-common.
So, gtk-doc-tools is unusable if installed as is without gnome-common if you
do what is documented in this package. Of course, you can avoid using this
AC macro, and do it manually, but how ?
Moreover, your argument saying that each package depending on gtk-doc-tools
have to put the dependency on gnome-common themselves seems quite suporious
to me. It could be used to argument that each program willing to use
gnome-canvas have to declare the dependency on gnome-canvas's dependencies
by itself. :)
And last point, as said in the BR, I would be ok with a 'suggest'. I only
think that when stuff fails because of missing extra package, the first
package should give an hint to the user on how to fix this.
Bye, Mt.
--
Moi, Adam et Ève, j'y crois plus tu vois, parce que je suis pas un
idiot : la pomme, ça peut pas être mauvais, c'est plein de pectine...
-- Jean Claude Van Damme
