Re: Doc packages

[Andreas Tille <tillea@rki.de>]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Otavio Salvador wrote:

> Andreas, sorry but what the people does with cdd-dev package should
> not interest to us. He uses it how  and when he likes.
Yes, and that's why I'm not able to support the doc package out of the
cdd-dev package in a common way.  It is absolutely no problem if somebody
adds docs or whatever, but I see no chance to make live simpler for these
people because the needs might be very different.

> For example, Liberdade, this use cdd-dev and build udeb too. So I
> cannot use the default rules fine.
I personally have no idea how to build udeb packages but I can see no reason
why the default rules file should not be enhanced in a way that both is
possible.  Just try to set some kind of flag if udeb building is wished.
I would greatly appreciate this feature once I would have to build udebs
myself. (Did I said that I have no idea how to build udebs? ;-)

> Now I understand you but I think how others CDDs does your packages
> and how cdd source package is built are different cases and one should
> not change the other. They indepent.
Sure, but why not support all things which are common in the build tools
which are common.  It's not about forcing people to use the common way
but suggesting people to use things which proved to work for others.  That's
why I would love to see an udeb building feature included (because at least
two CDDs seem to need it now - NP and Edu - and others might follow).

> To me, the doc merge is the right thing to do.
Merging the docs is fine and I have no problems with this.  The only thing
I was talking about is that I see no way to give people a helping hand
here with the cdd-tools.

Kind regards

         Andreas.