Re: gfdl gcc documentation packages for non-free: update
Nikita V. Youshchenko writes:
> > 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 firstname.lastname@example.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
AFAIK yes; docs have to be built from source. And you maybe want to
have the debian changes in the manpages as well.
> > - 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)?
include fsf-funding.7, gfdl.7, gpl.7 in the gcc-doc-defaults package.
> > - 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?
no, they are included in the same source, just built separately by
demand of the release team. they should be built from a gcc-doc
package as well. same thing with gnat docs.
the gcc/doc/include directory seems to be missing as well.
> As for libstdc++, looks like you do still provide all docs in
> libstdc++6-doc 4.1.1ds1-13 package?
there's at least one GFDL'd document missing.
> > - the man pages are not up to date. you have to apply the patches
> > from our sources.
> This could be done I guess.
please do. wrong documentation is worse than no documentation.
> 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.
your help is welcome, but what is it good for having non-free
documentation for free software?