[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposal: remove man and info entries from dh config files



On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 10:31:51 -0700
"Chuan-kai Lin" <cklin@google.com> wrote:

> On 7/27/07, Chuan-kai Lin <cklin@google.com> wrote:
> > I propose that we
> > systematically remove all entries in /usr/share/doc, /usr/share/man,
> > and /usr/share/info from *.install, *.files, and *.links.  We can do
> > it to all existing packages in svn, and add this functionality to
> > em_make so that it is automatically applied to future packages.
> 
> I am back!  To clarify things a bit: the motivation for the proposed
> change is to deal with packages that install documentation with
> dh_movefiles, dh_install, and dh_link.  We still need these debhelper
> scripts in emdebian builds, and removing the docs entries from the
> .install, .files, and .links files prevents those debhelper scripts
> from installing documentation into the packages.
> 
> So yes?  No?

Maybe it's just late but I'm still confused.

em_make already removes dh_installfoo from debian/rules and Emdebian
packages should be patched to remove any remaining /usr/share/doc/* 
/usr/share/man/* and /usr/share/info/* files anyway.

dh_link is not easy to automate because it is not just used for
manpages. Yes, .install, .files and .links files probably also need to
be scanned but those patterns are also not always identifiable without
some knowledge of the package. There are other packages where some help
content will need to remain too.

If /usr/share/man/*, /usr/share/doc/* and /usr/share/info/* remain in
current Emdebian packages then these should be removed in the next
builds and if you have a patch for em_make to improve things, let me
know.

I'm not sure what you are proposing - apart from improving some of the
existing builds which is more than welcome.

Do you have a method of automating these changes in a reliable manner?

Have you looked at dpkg filtering? It will have to be part of the
eventual solution and it will need to be ported to --build as well as
the current --install.

-- 


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

Attachment: pgpn2kdWJWZk7.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: