Re: compilers that self compile
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 02:33:35PM -0300, Antonio S. de A. Terceiro wrote:
> My idea is to make a first release with sources already translated
> (which can be done with a precompiled binary for i386 distributed by
> upstream), which would compile fine with just g++ and libxml2-dev as
> build-dependencies. Then, when/if it goes into repository, it will be
> possible to compile a second release from untranslated sources, since
> ac++ itself will be already available.
I'd not suggest to do so, because you're then having a pre-translated
source in as source package, something that would be non-trivial to just
modify and then work with changes -- a requirement for Debian main.
> I've requested that upstream distribute one version already translated.
> .orig.tar.gz has to be officially distributed by upstream to be
> considered pristine, hasn't it?
It isn't a requirement that the .orig.tar.gz is identical to upstream,
but anyway, you can always add stuff in the diff if you want. However,
in this case I wouldn't go that route.
I suggest to locally on your own system do whatever you need to do to
get a ac++ package (and indeed document this carefully in the rules
file). If the translations are architecture independent, and available
on some upstream website, that'd make it easy for porters.
Then, you can build-depend on your self, and make sure you have a ac++
source package that can build itself from pristine .orig.tar.gz without
any help (just requiring the ac++ being installed already). If this
succeeds, you can upload this ac++ package, once it's in unstable, it
can also be build in unstable, using itself.
Note: I'm not a porter.
> Will this approach make manual porting unnecessary?
Possibly, but while you include such hand-crafted translations somewhere
in the source package, I doubt it's satisfying all of the DFSG
guidelines. You could of course still do so, and file a RC bug on your
own package while you have this hack in place, so to easy porting
indeed... But that'd be quite hacky, and I'm quite unsure whether such a
tactic would be appreciated.
--Jeroen
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Reply to: