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

Re: doc-base is hugely unloved; bug mass-filing needed?

Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> After years and years of waiting for packages to register their
> documents with doc-base, and filing individual bugs with some (not all
> -- I am not jidani, LOL) of those that didn't register, I am quite
> frustrated.

Maybe if things were more automated and less painful, there would be
more packages that would be registered using doc-base. Maybe I have
missed some Debian tools to do it, or I am going to say stupidity about
docbase itself (that I don't know more than what I read on how to
support it on my own package, without really know what it is for). If
that's the case, let me know (and don't start a flaming / trolling).

But as it stands, each time I run lintian with the -Ii flags, and that
it complains about the lack of doc-base registration, I feel like it
should have been more easy to deal with. I try to be a good Debian
citizen, so I still do it. But if we had only something like this:

	dh_docbase /usr/share/doc/$PKG/html/index.html \
		-t "My package title" -f HTML

and nothing more. Then I believe it would be a lot more attractive to
everyone, and think that maybe, other DDs would not mind so much if the
lack of docbase registration done this very easy way was producing a
lintian error (and not just a warning when lintian is in verbose mode).

I don't really see the point in having to write an Abstract, a Title,
and a Section, when all of these are already available in
debian/control, and most of the time, that's enough. I know already what
people are going to reply here: "what if the doc addresses something
different than the package description talks about?" Well, then make it
possible to be overridden, possibly doing the exact same way it's done
currently, but don't force people to write twice the same things in many
case, do more automation, and you'll get more love in return.

Just my 2 cents hoping that it will help,


Reply to: