[aur-general] Rules about providing "compiled" documentation
Hello, I maintain the package gnuplot-nox [1], which is a low dependency version of extra package gnuplot [2]. Until recently, I was building and installing the gnuplot.info file (texinfo format) using file gnuplot.texi which was provided in the archive. (generation goes this way : gnuplot.doc -> gnuplot.texi -> gnuplot.info). The latest release of gnuplot (5.0) does not provide the intermediate texi file anymore. Without it, I cannot generate the info file directly, I have to use emacs to generate the texi file. This bring a new build dependency to the package. I'm looking for advises on how to deal with the situation : 1/ Can I provide a locally built gnuplot.info in the package ? Does this respect the standard ? 2/ Should I give up on providing the info file ? 3/ Should I keep the emacs build-deps and keep building the info file ? Not really low-dependency... Also note that generating the info file is not a default target of the Makefile since version 4.6.4. The only other "usable" source of documentation I can provide with the package is the gnuplot.pdf file which is still present in the archive. Regards, [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gnuplot-nox/ [2] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/gnuplot/
On 6 January 2015 at 17:01, JoKoT3
Also note that generating the info file is not a default target of the Makefile since version 4.6.4.
Then forget about it (2), unless requested by other users. What upstream does not provide, don't go out of your way to do it yourself. If users do request it, inform upstream and do it in your package (1). It is then OK if upstream does not heed your request. You can continue to provide it via method (1) as long as it has no adverse effects on functionality and/or upstream support. -- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman
Then forget about it (2), unless requested by other users. What upstream does not provide, don't go out of your way to do it yourself. If users do request it, inform upstream and do it in your package (1).
It is then OK if upstream does not heed your request. You can continue to provide it via method (1) as long as it has no adverse effects on functionality and/or upstream support.
Thanks, I'll go with solution 2 I will also ask upstream to provide the intermediate file (texi) the way it was done before. @Pablo : unfortunately the man page does not provide the same amount of information than the info file
I
El 06/01/2015 08:02, "JoKoT3"
Hello,
I maintain the package gnuplot-nox [1], which is a low dependency version of extra package gnuplot [2].
Until recently, I was building and installing the gnuplot.info file (texinfo format) using file gnuplot.texi which was provided in the archive. (generation goes this way : gnuplot.doc -> gnuplot.texi -> gnuplot.info).
The latest release of gnuplot (5.0) does not provide the intermediate texi file anymore. Without it, I cannot generate the info file directly, I have to use emacs to generate the texi file. This bring a new build dependency to the package.
I'm looking for advises on how to deal with the situation : 1/ Can I provide a locally built gnuplot.info in the package ? Does this respect the standard ? 2/ Should I give up on providing the info file ? 3/ Should I keep the emacs build-deps and keep building the info file ? Not really low-dependency...
Also note that generating the info file is not a default target of the Makefile since version 4.6.4.
The only other "usable" source of documentation I can provide with the package is the gnuplot.pdf file which is still present in the archive.
Regards,
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gnuplot-nox/ [2] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/gnuplot/
Ir The provide a manpage then drop the infopage else use metod 1
participants (3)
-
JoKoT3
-
Pablo Lezaeta Reyes
-
Rashif Ray Rahman