Re: RFC: xindy
Hallo Frank,
Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> wrote:
> - According to the README file,
Which README file? /usr/share/doc/xindy-rules/README?
> xindy is distributed as
>
> ,----
>| -- the xindy scripts and modules in source form
>| -- the xindy kernel in binary form
>| -- the xindy run time environment in binary form
> `----
>
> and the sources for kernel and runtime environment are available
> separately.
But not the docs. They came from Valhalla aka CVS.
> Ah, in debian/rules there's a get-orig-source target. This looks as
> if the sources for the kernel and rte are missing?
No. This is the new source structure. All is in one package. It
should be release... I don't know when? I thought it happend in the
last half year, but it didn't.
> - The description of the xindy binary package ends with
>
> ,----
>| Have a
>| look at xindy's Overview that describes its most important features!
>| .
>| Homepage: http://xindy.sourceforge.net/
> `----
>
> To me it is unclear what "xindy's Overview" should be. One could
> guess that it's something on the homepage, but there's no "Overview"
> navigation item.
Yes. I've stolen this description from the homepage. But this last
sentens makes only sense on the homepage. I remove it.
> - why not use compatibility level 5 for a new package?
I changed it.
> - AM_MAINTAINER_MODE: You write in debian/rules
>
> Wouldn't it be much easier to just patch the build system and disable
> maintainer mode?
I have to rebuild the configure script which seems a heavy change to me.
I prefer upstream do so in the next release and I use this hack until then.
> Otherwise, the patches look good - have you reported them to Joachim?
Only some. Joachim or anything else on the list did not reply to my
posts. I didn't get a contact to one of the developers. In January,
Joachim wrote his is very busy. Do you know if this is still so?
Thanks for your comments.
Bye, Jörg.
--
Geld allein macht nicht glücklich, aber es ist besser in einem Taxi zu
weinen, als in der Straßenbahn.
(Marcel Reich-Ranicki)
Reply to: