On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 15:59:44 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Quoting Gianfranco Costamagna (2014-10-29 15:18:30) > > > >For the source package I believe you should either... > > [...] > > > the documentation is usually regenerated into debian, not ship with > > the source code > > Silly me, you are right, off course. > > >>For the [binary] package I believe you should either... > > [...] > > >>I don't follow why using a symlink is bad - if only you ensure to not > >>have broken symlink, by depending on (not recommending) the jquery > >> > > The problem is: > > vi /usr/share/doc/doxygen/REAMDE.jquery > > > > " > > It is not considered a problem for Doxygen or packages using Doxygen to > > embed jquery. In fact replacing the `jquery.js` file created by Doxygen > > likely results in broken documentation. Packages doing that are buggy. > > Lintian will have to learn that a `jquery.js` embedded by Doxygen is a > > normal thing. " > > > > > > they call it jquery, but in fact is not really jquery. > > > > > > (the solution might be in the doxygen doc file, but unfortunately it > > isn't accepted by all the developers) > > Ahh - sorry I was not addressing your actuall issue at all. Nothing > wrong with your initial explanation, only with me :-/ > > IMO the proper solution is for Debian packaging of doxygen to untangle > jQuery from extensions, depend on + symlink the jQuery part, provide the > extensions as a shared package, and patch doxygen code to generate > docuementation referencing each separately instead of the entangled one. > > ...but seems from that README that maintainers of doxygen have already > reflected on this and disagrees. > > I suggest (but won't drive it myself) to file a bug against doxygen to > kindly reconsider... > > ...and until eventually maybe progress on that front, either a) try > untangle the jquery+extensions code yourself for each and every single > package using doxygen, or b) embrace same attitude as doxygen > maintainers and add lintian suppressions referencing doxygen README as > comment. > > > I suspect there's nothing new in what I write here - that you've already > come to same conclusion yourself before posting do devel - sorry that I > have no better input. :-/ Would another option be to use "built-using" the doxygen version in question. Since effectively this is embedded code from the doxygen package if I understand it correctly. Using doxygen to regenerate things is the preferred form of modification and all the source is available in doxygen. Other than being annoying and causing stuff to have to be rebuilt when doxygen is updated, what's wrong with that? Scott K
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.