Re: gfdl gcc documentation packages for non-free: update
> Nikita V. Youshchenko writes:
> > Hello.
> > I've updated gcc-4.1 documentation packages (Section: non-free/doc).
> > Packages are no longer debian-native, also several issues have been
> > fixed.
> > Also, I've created gcc-doc-defaults package (Section: contrib/doc)
> > that builds gcc-doc, cpp-doc, gfortran-doc and treelang-doc packages
> > with proper dependences and symlinks.
> > Maintainer of all those packages is set to email@example.com
> > As for over version of gcc - packages for those that are currently in
> > sid still contain gfdl documentation. So creation of proper non-free
> > packages has to be postponed until this documentation is not removed
> > from there.
> > Currently packages are at
> > http://zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su/~nikita/debian/gcc-doc/
> > I'm going to upload there (to non-free and contrib) in a day or two.
> > Comments welcome.
> some problems:
> - the man pages (all except gfortran.1) are not built from
> source. -> RC
Most manpages are available as is in upstream tarball - so I decided to use
those unmodified. Fortran manpage was not there - so I had to build it.
If that's a problem, all may be made built from texi source, that should be
> - the gfdl is not included in the man pages, nor the gfdl(7) man
> pages are shipped, violating the GFDL (dropping invariant
> sections). -> RC
What is the best approach to handle this? Include full gfdl text in
debian/copyright? Depend on a package that will provide gfdl.7 (or
> - the java man pages are not built
> - the libstdc++ docs are not built
I've checked which files are in package set build from gcc-4.1 4.1.1-10,
but are not in files built from gcc-4.1 4.1.1ds1-13 source.
Probably java stuff is built from different source - so additional source
package is needed for it's docs?
As for libstdc++, looks like you do still provide all docs in
libstdc++6-doc 4.1.1ds1-13 package?
> - the man pages are not up to date. you have to apply the patches
> from our sources.
This could be done I guess.
> for an alternative approach (somebody did volunteer to do that, but I
> never heard again from this developer):
> - put the doc files from
> in a source tarball.
> - build-depend on gcc-4.1-source (including the -doc patches),
> build the package (bootstrap_target=all), then just package
> the documentation.
I don't know if this approach is better or not. Won't it take much longer
I did the doc package in the form I did it because:
- there is currently no gcc docs in debian, which I consider a fatal
problem (in my personal rating, it's much more RC than most of "official"
- enough time has passed since gcc docs have been removed, and there is no
visible activity to provide it
- etch release is near, so etch release without gcc docs starts to look
very probable. For me, that will mean that I will have to stop recommend
Debian for people with whom I work - and then maybe to switch from Debian
myself, because it is too difficult to support non-very-technical perople
on distribution other than you use. I don't like this scenario at all.
So I did the minimal packaging, and will try to fix at least the required
minimum of issues so etch will include those (in non-free and contrib
sections). Btw, thanks for reports.
If anybody else wishes to create or maintain or co-maintain gcc docs
packages, using mine or your or any other approach, I have nothing
against. Just the opposite. I have bad and hopeless problems with free
time. All free software - related plans and ideas, even simple ones, are
frozen already for months. I'm doing gcc-doc packages only because I don't
see anybody else working on this problem, which I consider critical.