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

Re: Consistent handling of the DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS



On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 22:51:33 +0100
Gabor Gombas <gombasg@sztaki.hu> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:32:20PM +0000, Neil Williams wrote:
> 
> > OK - as long as the one option always has the same meaning. A package
> > that builds libfoo-doc needs to drop the -doc content AND the
> > manpages, changelog, README, AUTHORS etc., from all packages and not
> > just the "docs". I realise that this may mean that the -doc or -data,
> > -common package becomes all but empty. That is what we need for
> > Emdebian - packages that contain the essential binary and virtually
> > nothing else.
> 
> I wonder if this is the wrong approach. You want to add extra complexity
> to _every_ package for the benefit of only a small user base. 

That is why there is the thought of setting this via debhelper.

> Instead,
> why not patch "dpkg-deb -b" in Emdebian to interpret -nodoc as "leave
> out everything under /usr/share/doc when building a package"?

-nodocs already exists, why not use that? Wouldn't it be better if
-nodocs could be interpreted reliably?

If we stick to the original meaning of just dropping -doc and not
extending it to other files, less packages are affected.

> This
> change is much smaller, much more targetted, and works even if some
> developers decide they do not want to bloat their packaging just because
> of Emdebian.

That can be a long term goal - dpkg is beginning to support filters for
installation and I hope dpkg can support those when building too.

-- 

Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

Attachment: pgptc4_0f4Y4J.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: