Re: RFC: xindy
Frank Küster <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> - According to the README file,
Which README file? /usr/share/doc/xindy-rules/README?
> xindy is distributed as
>| -- the xindy scripts and modules in source form
>| -- the xindy kernel in binary form
>| -- the xindy run time environment in binary form
> and the sources for kernel and runtime environment are available
But not the docs. They came from Valhalla aka CVS.
> Ah, in debian/rules there's a get-orig-source target. This looks as
> if the sources for the kernel and rte are missing?
No. This is the new source structure. All is in one package. It
should be release... I don't know when? I thought it happend in the
last half year, but it didn't.
> - The description of the xindy binary package ends with
>| Have a
>| look at xindy's Overview that describes its most important features!
>| Homepage: http://xindy.sourceforge.net/
> To me it is unclear what "xindy's Overview" should be. One could
> guess that it's something on the homepage, but there's no "Overview"
> navigation item.
Yes. I've stolen this description from the homepage. But this last
sentens makes only sense on the homepage. I remove it.
> - why not use compatibility level 5 for a new package?
I changed it.
> - AM_MAINTAINER_MODE: You write in debian/rules
> Wouldn't it be much easier to just patch the build system and disable
> maintainer mode?
I have to rebuild the configure script which seems a heavy change to me.
I prefer upstream do so in the next release and I use this hack until then.
> Otherwise, the patches look good - have you reported them to Joachim?
Only some. Joachim or anything else on the list did not reply to my
posts. I didn't get a contact to one of the developers. In January,
Joachim wrote his is very busy. Do you know if this is still so?
Thanks for your comments.
Geld allein macht nicht glücklich, aber es ist besser in einem Taxi zu
weinen, als in der Straßenbahn.