Re: packages for netcdf 3.6.2 (released today)
Warren Turkal wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 March 2007 17:47, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
>> * possibility to build an arch:all documentation package
>
> The maintainer is encouraging the use of the pre-built docs instead of
> building them from the texinfo sources. Would there be an issue with doing
> that?
It looks like there was a general consensus in a thread from 2005 [0]
that as long as the source code for the docs is shipped in the source
package, it is OK to ship the pre-built docs in the binary package(s).
Someone in that thread suggested [1] adding a target in debian/rules
that could build the docs even if that target was never called (except
by hand from time to time, to make sure that the docs are still
autobuildable).
[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2005/02/msg00131.html
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2005/02/msg00134.html
If you want to do this, most of the clean target I suggested earlier
should be removed, since sbuild and dpkg-buildpackage always run
debian/rules clean first.
>> * whether or not this is the same as the "netcdf-doc" referenced by #321337
>
> It seems to be. However, netcdf-doc hasn't been updated in ages.
Hmm. Do you think that the FTP masters should be asked to remove the
netcdf-doc source package from unstable once the new netcdf is there? If
so, I guess there is no problem with including a netcdf-doc binary
package built from the netcdf source package. The existing netcdf-doc
source package is most unlikely to end up on the autobuilders
(especially now that I realize it is of course arch:all) before netcdf
3.6.2 is in unstable :-)
>From your other email:
> On Wednesday 07 March 2007 17:47, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
>> 1) I have to tell you that I made an error in the clean target I
>> suggested for debian/rules:
[snip]
>> ... specifically, all of the $ signs above should be changed to $$ in
>> order to escape them from Make. My apologies for that!
>
> Fixed in pre4 @ [1].
>
> [1]http://www.penguintechs.org/~wt/debian/netcdf/
Assuming you'd like me to look at the newer -1~pre5 version there instead?
Looks fine, except there are still a lot of HTML files in the diff.gz.
This rule in the debian/rules clean target:
rm -f man/*.html
doesn't get them all since most are in subdirectories of man. Try this
instead for instance:
find . -name '*.html' -exec rm -f {} \;
# remove now-empty directories
find . -depth -type d -empty -exec rmdir {} \;
It would make sense to delete these in a clean target even if you decide
to use the docs prebuilt by upstream, since these HTML files are *not*
present in the orig.tar.gz and you don't install them to the .debs in
any case.
best regards,
--
Kevin B. McCarty <kmccarty@princeton.edu> Physics Department
WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/ Princeton University
GPG: public key ID 4F83C751 Princeton, NJ 08544
Reply to: