Re: Building and cleaning the manual in advi
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 10:08:02AM +0100, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
> Hello,
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 11:03:46AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Well, my impression is that licences only apply at link time, not when mere
> > distributing as examples. And since we don't distribute the linked version it
> > is ok. Other may have some problem with that claiming the intention counts, as
> > was the case with the emacs files. Now the example files are clearly usefull
> > without those files, since their primary aim is to serve as example, not to be
> > reused and linked by the user, so i would say there is no problem.
>
> I don't think you have a licencese to distribute <insert some random
> propriotary software>, even if you do not intend to link to it.
>
> > > This seems to be necessary, I am afraid, because I am unable to
> > > rebuild the HTML documentation or the man page (where, honestly
> > > speaking, only one string is repleaced). But make clean happily
> > > deletes the pre-build ones.
> >
> > Hehe. Why can't you rebuild them though ? That would be the cleanest solution.
>
> Please look at the beginning of this thread. Essentially, there is no
> programm "htmlc" in Debian or in the tar ball, and all the
> documentation I could read in the tar ball did not talk about where to
Oh, ok, i forgot abouyt that one. i will investigate ...
What exactly is the format that it used in the original source code ? Mmm,
will have a look myself.
> get it. For the man page I don't remember the exact error, but the
> only difference between the source and the final man page is one
> substituted variable with the version. Essentially, we have two
> options:
>
> a) Patch the source to remove the variable (I would do this, as the
> man page was written for a certain version, but of course this
> requires updating whenever a new upstream tar ball changes the
> version).
>
> b) Run the source through sed or similar, i.e., automatically replace
> the version with the version of advi we are building. This could be
> achieved by a patched Makefile for the man page. Of course, this
> might mislead readers into thinking that the man page always fully
> applies to the latest version.
That would be easy enough.
> If you could check the intent of upstream, that would be great, so we
> could follow upstreams idea then.
Indeed, to bad i didn't think of it yesterday, as i talked with Pierre Weiss
about advi, but i have been out of touch of anything eail and packaging
related since then.
> I also fixed the spelling of the doc-base entry; since the manual is
> only shipped as pdf at the moment, and doc-base does not support this
> (if I see that correctly), I did not add an entry to the changelog and
> renamed the file (svn mv). Once we have HTML-docs again, the file can
> be renamed back; after this fix is included, the bug can be closed
> manually, though.
Ok.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: