Re: Auto-building many manpages: redundant work for the buildds ?
Am Samstag, den 21.07.2007, 10:14 +0200 schrieb David Paleino:
> 2007/7/21, Charles Plessy <email@example.com>:
> > Le Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 03:05:45PM +0200, Daniel Leidert a écrit :
> > >
> > > This would violate the Debian Policy section 12.1, reading "[..] Each
> > > program, utility, and function should have an associated manual page
> > > included in the same package. [..]".
> > Hi Daniel,
> > Since it is not a MUST, but just a SHOULD, would it mean that it would
> > be acceptable to ship the manpages with the doc anyway ?
I don't see any advantage in this effort.
> > If emboss
> > Recommends: emboss-doc, aptitude will install them together by default.
aptitude is not the only package installation tool and this behaviour
can be turned off for aptitude too.
> Or, alternatively, create an emboss-manpages package (arch: all) to
> Depend on (as I already stated).
Where is the advantage of such an effort? There is none. You would have
to install two packages instead of simply one and you don't save any
space nor bandwith. IMHO shipping manpages and programs separately but
depend on each other is a senseless effort. But that's of course my
> That would ensure that every manpage
> in emboss is shipped (it just violates the "in the same package"
> clause -- but it's a SHOULD, as Charles already pointed out), it would
> reduce the load on buildds,
If the manpages are already prepared, I don't think, you reduce the load
of a buildd. Only the question, if the manpages should be prepared
during build time IMHO has a valuable effect on the buildd loads.
[snip the rest]