[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#196073: gtk-doc-tools and #196073

On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 05:08:32PM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 10:53:58 +0200, Martin Quinson wrote:
> > you uploaded a new version of gtk-doc the 2003-06-19 (maintainer:
> > debian-qa) to fix a few bugs, but you forgot the #196073 one, which were
> > marked pending by the maintainer before orphaning, and not fixed.
> I didn't forget it. I was concerned only about the issues effecting the
> libgsf package which I maintain.

Ok, I'll have to find another DD interested in qa to upload this then.

> > Could you please reupload this package with the needed dependency ?
> No. Reading #196073 it talks about packages that use both gtk-doc-tools and
> automake at build time and don't declare their build dependencies properly.
> IMO that's a bug in those packages, not in gtk-doc-tools.

Not exactly. gtk-doc-tools is unusable in projects (not [only] package, user
projects) when gnome-common isn't installed because you have to put
GNOME_GTKDOC_CHECK in your configure.{ac,in}. And this macro is declared in
files from gnome-common.

So, gtk-doc-tools is unusable if installed as is without gnome-common if you
do what is documented in this package. Of course, you can avoid using this
AC macro, and do it manually, but how ?

Moreover, your argument saying that each package depending on gtk-doc-tools
have to put the dependency on gnome-common themselves seems quite suporious
to me. It could be used to argument that each program willing to use
gnome-canvas have to declare the dependency on gnome-canvas's dependencies
by itself. :)

And last point, as said in the BR, I would be ok with a 'suggest'. I only
think that when stuff fails because of missing extra package, the first
package should give an hint to the user on how to fix this.

Bye, Mt.

Moi, Adam et Ève, j'y crois plus tu vois, parce que je suis pas un
idiot : la pomme, ça peut pas être mauvais, c'est plein de pectine...
          -- Jean Claude Van Damme

Reply to: