Re: Fwd: RFS: gcc-4.5-doc-non-dfsg
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Samuel Bronson <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Nikita V. Youshchenko <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> In good old days when I had time and motivation to maintain gcc-doc, I've
>> used git repos to managed entire thing.
>> I've just created externally-available mirror for those - please check
>> Could you please clone these repos, and reformat your work into this
>> IMO this format greatly helps to keep things consistent.
> I can certainly try!
Okay, I've cloned your gcc-doc repository and added my changes:
git clone https://github.com/SamB/debian-gcc-doc
(Or open it in your browser, or ...)
I'm holding off on updating the 4.4 control files and the -defaults
packages for the moment: I want to streamline the "new X.Y" process a
bit more first.
>> Maybe this could be moved to git.debian.org.
Yes, that sounds like a good idea. Then I could add the Vcs-*: fields
to debian/control. Of course, there will probably be a lot to update
in README.source then...
>> As for the rest, here are several more comments:
>> *) I don't really understand the workflow of gcc-doc-non-dfgs converted to
>> 3.0 (quilt) format.
>> With old format, there was debian/patches, managed by dpatch, with part of
>> patches managed by hands, and part managed by a perl script. Running the
>> script altered debian/patches/* files, including series file. But isn't
>> this unsafe for 3.0 (quilt) format since it will break metadata in .pc/
> Hmm. Perhaps the script should simply refuse to run whenever there is
> a .pc directory? (It seems that dpkg-source removes this after
> unapplying the patches.)
In any case, most of this is changed very little; the script just gets
to be a bit shorter since the patches no longer have to be shell
>> Also, if you convert to 3.0 (quilt), why still mentioning dpatch in
> That was an accident.
I've corrected this now.
>> *) Looks like your command line for patch convertion script is much shorter
>> that in was in previous times. How did you check which patches to apply
>> and which not?
> Well, I grepped the GCC package's debian/patches for anything that
> changed .texi files, and looked through the debian/rules.patch to see
> which of those seemed to be applied for Debian builds on any
> architecture (in that alternate universe where
>> Actually I've looked at updating gcc-doc during new year holidays, and
>> stopped and postponed it exactly at this point. It was unclear what
>> patches to apply, looked like some procedure/policy was needed, and I
>> could not think your such a policy at that time.
>> The idea was to check what patches are applied for each of in-debian
>> architectures, and apply doc changes for all of those. This could likey be
>> automated, e.g. by writing a makefile that will include debian/rules2 from
>> gcc package, and then use vars set by that to print list of applied
>> patches; some tricks with var-setting could do this for all archs.
> Hmm, not a terrible idea. I still think the *very* cleanest thing
> would probably be to build "gcc-X.Y-doc-non-dfsg" like this, though:
[Oops, I forgot to finish this bit:]
* Take the debian/ directory from "gcc-X.Y"
+ uncomment the documentation patches if necessary
+ replace debian/control with one that only builds the documentation packages
+ arrange for "GFDL_INVARIANT_FREE=no" to be set
* Put a pristine upstream tarball in the root of the tree in place of
the stripped one that gcc-X.Y uses.
(Of course, this would turn the package into little more than a script
to generate the *actual* packages.)
However, as I'm always low on diskspace, I'm a bit reluctant to
actually *try* this.
>> *) [minor but still] it looks a bit unfair that there is only your
>> signature under README.source, while large part of the text was written by
>> me :).
> I agree with you that this was a very rude of the README.Debian Emacs
> mode to do this. I can understand updating the date; removing your
> name, not so much. Though, it also obviously shouldn't simply update
> the date next to your name. So I'm not really sure what it *should*
> If you can think what it should do, maybe we should open a bug against
> /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/dpkg-dev-el/readme-debian.el to request the
>>> 2. In contemplating putting debian/copyright in DEP-5 format, I've
>>> realized that I'm not sure of the exact copyright/licensing status of
>>> anything in the debian/ directory, except:
>> See debian/copyright from the old packages. Everything non-autogenerated
>> under debian/ was stated to be GPL; I don't object changing that if
> No, there's certainly no need to change that. (Of course, I would not
> object if they were to be put under the Expat license. :-)
> P.S. I apologize for returning the slow response time!
I've now actually made an attempt at putting debian/copyright in DEP5
form. There are a couple of holes in it still, but that's mostly
because of upstream problems, and the holes have been there all along