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:
pgpzhGFq3h6Lb.pgp
Description: PGP signature