Re: www-master: Latest SVN or packaged version? (was: SVN finally fully enabled ...)
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 11:49:40PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > But even that is wasteful because it has to make e.g. a mirror
> > selection, which evades the existing www-master scripts that do the same
> > more consistently.
>
> Hmmm... any pointer? I was going to pick one mirror and curl/wget/dget
> deb package(s).
Exactly. It might work just fine, but it might also not - the mirror could
time out, or some other problem could develop, and it would be that much
harder to debug and fix if these rules were stowed away in some obscure
makefile in the DDP tree, rather than in the www-master scripts.
> > Also, we definitely don't want novel makefile rules to be directly publishing
> > stuff on the web site, because all sorts of strange things can happen with
> > that. The existing 'publish' rules are risky enough.
>
> Which publish rule are you talking.
> No I do not want to touch main Makefile.
>
> Project makefile: what is the difference in risk to make html files
> directly from source or copy contents from package to its publishing
> area. I mean that we run "dpkg-deb -x package.deb
> /var/tmp/something/" and copy html to install directory. Then emove
> /var/tmp/something/.
Yes, except that the /var/tmp/something/ is
/org/www.debian.org/www/doc/manuals/, which can also become something else
by mistake, and end up overwriting something else.
> > Anyway, I think we've spent a lot of time musing about this alternative
> > solution, which may give people the wrong impression. The cleanest solution
>
> ??? clean ???? or you mean ***practical***. tex-live backport is
> non-trivial though. I agree it is practical for most cases. I should
> do one backport, I know.
>
> > is to have the necessary tool-chain packages backported - it's a useful
> > thing for everyone, and we are after all a community of packagers - it's
> > not that hard for us to make backports :)
>
> Joy, you know we (or I) make things in hard way. Now I am having fun
> making pbuilder to support unstable and backport with a simple command
> line option (Bug #398404). Then I had to lern git and its mail
> interface to contribute to the upstream. I have not made back port
> yet...
I guess I see your point - if we spend too much time thinking about the
backport, there's no one left to think about the actual documentation :)
I think it would be reasonable to expect some help from other Debianites
on this matter.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Reply to: