Re: LAM packaging [update]
On Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 10:40:52AM +0000, Andrew M.A.Cater [Andy] wrote:
> Solution: prepatch the source with the untarred patches. Is this OK?
Yes, but it will make the .diff.gz bigger, I guess.
> Problem: this package has an overlapping man page with mpich [another
> implementation of message passing for clusters]. The two man pages are
> widely different: is it OK just to make lam conflict with mpich if this is
> already installed.
>From the Debian point-of-view, yes. From a user's point of view, no. I
haven't made up my mind re: lam vs mpich, and I'd certainly like to be able
to install both of them. Specially if the conflict is just one lousy man
page :-)
Why don't you rename lam's manpage on debian/rules after installing? (be
creative, something.3lam would be ok, I guess). In fact, why don't you
rename every lam manpage, and put a note in README.Debian.
> Where do you set up the conflicts header.
In debian/control, put a Conflicts: mpich line
> Problem: As well as the man pages, there are also various large
> documents in PS format: one is main docs, one is various papers
> regarding performance etx. The docs have been gzipped.
>
> Do I
>
> Ignore these and refer people back to the upstream site for more
> extensive documentation ?
No, please don't :-)
> Place these in their own subdirectory under /usr/doc/lam/postscript?
Sounds fair. You can make a lam-docs package... in fact, it could be
something like lam-docs and lam-papers. Take a look at the several
multibinary packages in debian (libgtk or mesa should be good examples; I
beleive Manoj had some quite excellent examples, too, look in
http://master.debian.org/~srivasta/)
> Untar/zip them and convert the PS to ASCIi ??
Nope. Recommend a postscript-viewer, like this:
Package: lam-docs
Foo: bar
Recommends: postscript-viewer
Hope this helps,
Marcelo
Reply to: