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

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 debian-gcc@lists.debian.org
> >
> > 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 
maybe /usr/share/common-licenses/GFDL)?

>  - 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
>    http://people.debian.org/~doko/gcc-4.1/gcc-4.1.1-doc.tar.bz2
>    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 
to build/test/...?

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" 
RC bugs)
- 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.


Reply to: