Re: Documentation packages using CVS against policy ? (was Re: Bug#144456: ITP: qref -- debian quick reference.)
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 10:44:50AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Pe?a wrote:
> On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 04:44:44PM -0500, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
> > > - documentation packages should *not* include the documentation, they
> > > should just do a "cvs co" from the DDP CVS (see harden-doc for example,
> > > or the java-common package)
> >
> > I don't agree here. In the .deb we probably only provide HTML, PDF and
> > palin text. Users need the source to generate other formats.
>
> Regarding this I have received two bugs report recently.
> (#145976 and #146096) which seem to think that using cvs to update
> documentation included in the package is against policy. I have not taked
> a look (yet) at cvs-buildpackage which is *supposed* to do this for the
> whole package isn't it? What do other people think about this issue. I
> have not found anything saying that asking for an Internet connection when
> building is an issue.
That escapes the whole point of source packages -- to include sources.
I think you should include a rule to update from CVS, but also include the
sources themselves. In addition, you can't use a version number in
debian/changelog and rebuild from whatever's in CVS, the version will always
be out of date.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: