Re: Fwd: RFS: gcc-4.5-doc-non-dfsg
Why not just do GCC docs in a way similar to GNU Make?
Separately build docs from separate source package, and upload to non-free?
(with regular package names)
2012/9/27 Guo Yixuan <culu.gyx@gmail.com>:
> Hi,
>
> On 02/15/2012 04:02 AM, Samuel Bronson wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Samuel Bronson <naesten@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Nikita V. Youshchenko <yoush@debian.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
>>>> http://yoush.homelinux.org:8079/git
>>>>
>>>> Could you please clone these repos, and reformat your work into this
>>>> format?
>>>> 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/
>>>> directory?
>>>
>>> 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
>> scripts.
>>
>>>> Also, if you convert to 3.0 (quilt), why still mentioning dpatch in
>>>> README.source?
>>>
>>> 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
>>> GFDL_INVARIANT_FREE=no).
>>>
>>>> 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*
>>> do...
>>>
>>> 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
>>> change?
>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>> needed.
>>>
>>> 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
>> anyway.
>>
>
> How's it going now? Samuel has done much work in packaging
> gcc-4.[67]-doc, while there doesn't appear to be any real uploads.
>
> I've updated debian/4.7 branch in my personal git repo at Alioth, you
> can check it out:
>
> git clone git://git.debian.org/users/yixuan-guest/gcc-doc.git
>
> Regards,
>
> Guo Yixuan
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: [🔎] 50647C42.6050709@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 50647C42.6050709@gmail.com
>
Reply to: