Quoting Helmut Grohne (2014-10-30 23:59:11) > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 03:59:44PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> 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. > > Yeah, I had that opinion as well before looking into implementing it. > In the mean time I did remove several embedded copies of jquery from > Doxygen, just not the one we are discussing here. Cool! > Maybe you could help doing the missing work by packaging the missing > javascript libraries? It seems futile to discuss whether doxygen > should set symlinks to files that do not exist. I could indeed help with that. Or others in the Javascript team. Please file RFP bugs for your needs (or if already filed please reference which are the relevant ones). >> ...but seems from that README that maintainers of doxygen have >> already reflected on this and disagrees. > > I do not disagree with the goal. I just disagree that doing the work > is worth the^Wmy effort. I.e. patches welcome. Fair enough. >> I suggest (but won't drive it myself) to file a bug against doxygen >> to kindly reconsider... > > Please don't. I'd have to merge it into #736432. Ah, cool! Perhaps mention that bug in the README, to better encourage those running into this issue who might have time and interest in helping out. >> ...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 don't think it makes any sense to untangle this in individual > packages. If anyone puts up that work, it should happen in Doxygen. Right - I fully agree, and mentioned the alternative only in case the preferred approach was unacceptable by Doxygen maintainers - which you have now clearly stated is *not* the case. Sorry if that was not clear from how I wrote it. > A lintian suppression is not necessary, because this is a bug in > lintian: #736360. > > Also packages shouldn't set Built-Using: doxygen. That's not what > Built-Using was created for. Thanks for clarifying. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature