Hi Helmut, On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 08:40:00PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: >> 161 is many packages, though in my opinion splitting the documentation into >> arch:all packages is something that should be done independently of this bug. >> Maybe we can have some kind of DD list whose packages are affected by this? >> (Or a Lintian warning, see below.) > > Computing this list in an automated way is difficult, because > build-rdeps has no way of ignoring Build-Depends-Indep (even though the > underlying dose can do that, though not in unstable as Johannes just > told me). reverse-depends -b src:sphinx [1] returns multiple lists for B-D and B-D-I, but a *huge* part of the B-D group is packages that don't have arch-dep stuff at all (i.e. pure Python packages). [1] where reverse-depends is from ubuntu-dev-tools > This is not as clear cut. Sometimes documentation is small. We tend to > not split out every single bit of documentation into arch:all packages. > To the contrary, manual pages tend to be included with the main package. > I do not see consensus for this increase in the number of binary > packages. Right, but we were talking about the solutions to cross issues... > If the dh addon is not to be used, you should deprecate it. I actually > find the addon useful, because it removes complexity (unless you do > [1]). In an ideal world, we would maybe say "dh $@ --with-indep sphinx"? I won't deprecate it because Sphinx was developed for Python and most Python packages don't have any arch-specific stuff at all, so for them --with sphinxdoc works fine. A --with-indep option would be nice indeed :) > > Alternatively, as you suggest, such packages may build-depend on sphinx-common > > and I may mark sphinx-common as Muili-Arch: foreign. If it helps then I will > > do that. > > It's the simplest workaround that I see. Of course, people need to > remember to Build-Depend on sphinx-common to use the addon, which is > complexity of its own. If we pursue that road, we should document it > precisely (e.g. README.Debian?). So should I go ahead and add M-A: foreign attribute to sphinx-common? I can also document it in README.Debian but I am not sure I will find proper wording to describe the problem. Maybe you can help me with that? If you could do that, then I'll be able to describe the solution myself. -- Dmitry Shachnev
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature