[aur-general] Rules about providing "compiled" documentation

JoKoT3 jokot3 at gmail.com
Tue Jan 6 11:01:36 UTC 2015


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 ->

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.


[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gnuplot-nox/
[2] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/gnuplot/

More information about the aur-general mailing list