Re: Problems with substance/flamingo/trident doc packages
Hi Felix,
Le 01/06/2015 21:00, Felix Natter a écrit :
> I am packaging insubstantial (flamingo/substance/trident) and am
> planning to provide -doc packages for each (library) package:
Thank you for taking of these packages. Regarding the *-java-doc
packages, considering their extremely low popcon I wouldn't bother too
much with them. It slows the builds when the javadoc links are resolved
and uses a significant amount of space on the mirrors. If nobody uses
them I don't think it's worth the trouble.
> --> So my question is: Shall I try to fix all those problems or filter
> this and only include the javadoc?
>
> I tend to only ship javadoc as fixing the html docs (www/**) will result
> in quite broken (html-)documentation, is high effort and using only
> javadoc is what my predecessors did.
> --> What do you think?
I'd stick to the javadoc only too.
> Another unrelated question:
>
> "W: <package>: new-package-should-close-itp-bug"
> --> I had to start from scratch because the new insubstantial bundles
> all 7 libraries (see above) in one upstream source package.
> --> shall I file an ITP for this or create a dummy changelog entry with
> gives credit to the individual substance/flamingo/trident packagers
> (is there an example of this)?
Filing an ITP is recommended. As for crediting the packagers, you can
probably mention them in debian/copyright if you reused some bits from
the other packages.
Emmanuel Bourg
Reply to: