Possible doc package side-effect from going source-only upload
Hi all,
Maybe someone on the list can help with a sharp insight before I go trying.
The r-base source package (for the R system and language) has a somewhat
cobbled together debian/rules [1], mostly of my making over the last 20+
years since I helped Doug more and more and eventually took it over. I
apologize for the rough shape it is in, but hey, it works. Mostly. Read on.
As it was common, I used to binary upload, so arch: all documentation
packages where built here and shipped. A user alerted me (in private mail,
rather than via BTS, it happens) that the most recent upload is missing some
files:
I have just realized that all the /usr/lib/R/library/*/html/00Index.html
and /usr/lib/R/library/*/html/R.css files are missing from
r-base-html_3.6.1-4_all.deb and r-base-html_3.6.1-3_all.deb. They are
there in r-base-html_3.6.1-2_all.deb.
He is correct, and pondering this I realized that it very likely corresponds
to me being gently nudged to source uploads (a good thing, overall).
So presumably the dependency graph within debian/rules is wrong. Would
anybody here know
- either a failsafe idiom forcing the right thing to happen
- or a more efficient way
to ensure the binary-arch is built before binary-all? Should I force it? Is
that wasteful? Is there a recommended way?
Happy to test a few things but I thought I'd ask before wasting a lot of time
on it more randomly.
Please CC me on replies.
Many thanks, Dirk
[1] https://salsa.debian.org/edd/r-base/blob/master/debian/rules
--
http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | edd@debian.org
Reply to: