Re: question about docbook*simple
On Mon, 09 Sep 2002 08:11:36 EDT, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> said:
> I anticipate rolling out new versions of these (simple, slides, website) all
> based off DocBook 4.2 (directly or indirectly), "real soon now". So dependin
g
> on how much effort it is to build the releases, ...
Well, actually, there are three issues here:
One is just downloading a new version and doing the packaging;
I'm organized to do that pretty quickly now, especially if there are
no changes in the directory structure.
The second is that if I were going to do another NMU, I'd like the
maintainer's approval to re-write the rules file, to use only debhelper
scripts. I tried this, and it seems to me to make the package much more
maintainable: All that's needed is the standard rules file that comes out
of dh_make, with the addition of a single dh_install command in the
build-indep target. The dh_install program uses a configuration file that
lists sources and targets for installs. Likewise, the program dh_link
can be used with a configuration file if/when links are needed.
Using the debhelper scripts makes it much easier to maintain the package
when the upstream directory changes. So, here's a direct question for
Mark Johnson: would you agree to the above suggested change in the rules
file?
The third is that I know (guess?) that the real work in upgrading these
packages has to do with incorporating support for XML catalogs, but I
don't know many details of that effort, but do not want to do anything
that would interfere with that work. (The next email lists some
questions I have.)
But, to answer the question you actually asked, if the new releases have
the same directory structure as the old ones, it would not be much
work to make as-is upgrades when the time comes.
Cheers,
Susan
Reply to: