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

[Pablo Lezaeta Reyes]

I
El 06/01/2015 08:02, "JoKoT3" <jokot3 at gmail.com> escribió:
>
> 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