Re: LAM packaging [update]
On Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 10:40:52AM +0000, Andrew M.A.Cater [Andy] wrote:
> Solution: prepatch the source with the untarred patches. Is this OK?
Yes, but it will make the .diff.gz bigger, I guess.
> Problem: this package has an overlapping man page with mpich [another
> implementation of message passing for clusters]. The two man pages are
> widely different: is it OK just to make lam conflict with mpich if this is
> already installed.
>From the Debian point-of-view, yes. From a user's point of view, no. I
haven't made up my mind re: lam vs mpich, and I'd certainly like to be able
to install both of them. Specially if the conflict is just one lousy man
Why don't you rename lam's manpage on debian/rules after installing? (be
creative, something.3lam would be ok, I guess). In fact, why don't you
rename every lam manpage, and put a note in README.Debian.
> Where do you set up the conflicts header.
In debian/control, put a Conflicts: mpich line
> Problem: As well as the man pages, there are also various large
> documents in PS format: one is main docs, one is various papers
> regarding performance etx. The docs have been gzipped.
> Do I
> Ignore these and refer people back to the upstream site for more
> extensive documentation ?
No, please don't :-)
> Place these in their own subdirectory under /usr/doc/lam/postscript?
Sounds fair. You can make a lam-docs package... in fact, it could be
something like lam-docs and lam-papers. Take a look at the several
multibinary packages in debian (libgtk or mesa should be good examples; I
beleive Manoj had some quite excellent examples, too, look in
> Untar/zip them and convert the PS to ASCIi ??
Nope. Recommend a postscript-viewer, like this:
Hope this helps,