[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Doc packages

|| On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 22:54:41 +0200 (CEST)
|| Andreas Tille <tillea@rki.de> wrote: 

at> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> cdd-dev is a binary package and this doesn't build-depends of any
>> package.
at> Sure, but it should prepare a ready to run debian/control file for
at> *all* CDDs to keep necessary editing as low as possible for
at> meta package builders.  If the CDD meta package source needs different
at> Build dependencies you will have to do extra editing and research
at> which is not really hard but breaks the consistency.

Yes. cdd-dev is to help to build meta-packages but this doesn't force
to the built packages have the same build-deps of cdd source packages.

The only build-deps NEEDED to use cdd-dev is cdd-dev itself. How
cdd-dev is built and what this need is not user busines, IMHO.

>> If some maintainer what to *use* cdd-dev this does't need your your
>> build-deps installed, only deps. Your packages then will build-depend
>> of cdd-dev and of one doc tool, if need.
>> This is what I see. Is wrong?
at> Your arguing is not wrongf but as I said I would love if the control
at> file looks always the same with only one exception: The CDD name.
at> all further differences should be kept out.  As I've said I thought
at> about including the <cdd>-doc package into the meta-package building
at> source package but currently I'm not convinced that it is worth doing
at> it at the price of loosing consistency.

So you want cdd source itself looks like the package built to use
cdd-dev? it?

        O T A V I O    S A L V A D O R
 E-mail: otavio@debian.org      UIN: 5906116
 GNU/Linux User: 239058     GPG ID: 49A5F855
 Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio
"Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives
 you the whole house."

Attachment: pgp6nhPs98QH1.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: