Re: doc-base is hugely unloved; bug mass-filing needed?
Thomas> But as it stands, each time I run lintian with the -Ii flags,
Thomas> and that it complains about the lack of doc-base registration, I
Thomas> feel like it should have been more easy to deal with. I try to
Thomas> be a good Debian citizen, so I still do it. But if we had only
Thomas> something like this:
Thomas> dh_docbase /usr/share/doc/$PKG/html/index.html \ -t "My
Thomas> package title" -f HTML
Thomas> and nothing more. Then I believe it would be a lot more
Thomas> attractive to everyone, and think that maybe, other DDs would
Thomas> not mind so much if the lack of docbase registration done this
Thomas> very easy way was producing a lintian error (and not just a
Thomas> warning when lintian is in verbose mode).
Thomas> I don't really see the point in having to write an Abstract, a
Thomas> Title, and a Section, when all of these are already available in
Thomas> debian/control, and most of the time, that's enough. I know
Thomas> already what people are going to reply here: "what if the doc
Thomas> addresses something different than the package description talks
Thomas> about?" Well, then make it possible to be overridden, possibly
Thomas> doing the exact same way it's done currently, but don't force
Thomas> people to write twice the same things in many case, do more
Thomas> automation, and you'll get more love in return.
OK, so would a debhelper patch implementing this be accepted?
Ian Zimmerman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
gpg public key: 1024D/C6FF61AD
fingerprint: 66DC D68F 5C1B 4D71 2EE5 BD03 8A00 786C C6FF 61AD
Ham is for reading, not for eating.