Re: Documentation generated by doxygen and Debian Policy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
As stated in my previous message, this is the way to generate the
needed Doxyfile:
cd doc (inside the tarball-basedir )
qmake ( produce Makefile )
make ( build ./doxyfilter )
./doxyfilter -g ( generates Doxyfile )
after this some sed-magic to enable docs in LaTex and man-page format:
sed -i -e's/GENERATE_LATEX.*= NO/GENERATE_LATEX = YES/'\
- -e's/GENERATE_MAN.*= NO/GENERATE_MAN = YES/' ./Doxyfile
use doxygen to generate them docs:
doxygen ./Doxyfile
go back to tarball-basedir:
cd ..
done!
Cheers,
Björn
Am 19.04.2012 15:57, schrieb Thibaut Paumard:
> Le 19/04/12 15:18, Boris Pek a écrit :
>>>> I found that in package qxmpp is used HTML documentation from
>>>> upstream tarball. This documentation was not generated by
>>>> doxygen during build process. Should I make a bug report? If
>>>> yes, which section of Debian Policy I should point to?
>>>
>>> Well, there's nowhere in the DFSG or copyright (i'm assuming)
>>> that says that it must be in some format X. If the original
>>> source is, in fact, HTML, there's no problem.
> [...]
>>
>> Thank you for a reply.
>>
>> Perhaps I wrote unclear. In few steps: 1) There is some HTML
>> documentation [1] in upstream tarball. 2) This documentation was
>> generated using Doxygen. 3) This documentation was packaged in
>> package libqxmpp-doc as is. 4) I can not find in tarball the
>> necessary sources for Doxygen and instructions how to generate
>> this documentation manually.
>>
>> The question is: should I make a bug report in this case?
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> The source are the .h and .cpp files, so they are included. What I
> don't see is the DoxyFile (giving a quick glance to the source
> package). From the timestamps of the html files, I'd say that they
> have been generated by the maintainer just before uploading
> (actually, they have been generated 7 minutes after the changlogg
> entry was last finalized).
>
> I believe it is generally accepted that every file that can be
> (re)generated during the build process should be, for various
> reasons. In particular: - we must make sure that the sources we
> ship are the right ones from the generated files; - we must be able
> to generate the files from their source using only Debian/main.
>
> However I can't find anywhere in the Policy that it's an actual
> requirement to re-generate this kind of files at build-time.
>
> So yes, I think you can file a bug requesting that the maintainer
> builds the doc as part of "dpkg-buildpackage", but I can't find a
> clear-cut requirement stated in the policy.
>
> If you can provide a patch, all the better.
>
> Best regards, Thibaut.
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iF4EAREIAAYFAk+QHQwACgkQ3u1SIc8s7PUpKQEAo/vcIjppK4CBYbtHfqMGD4nK
8U2WiR8HUki95P+AAM0BAMZi2+kI0UI3azjrpNMrfhWmGXPzb7uNDrHxmC2xwuU0
=uwKg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: