On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 03:43:46PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: > On 2014-05-30 Peter Pentchev <r...@ringlet.net> wrote: > [...] > > The first patch moves the PDF, HTML and info documentation into a brand > > new package, libtasn1-6-doc. The goal here is to be able to disable the > > build at package granularity level: no matter what profile we're > > building in, if we build a binary package it should have the same > > contents as if it were built in any other profile (including the default > > one). So to disable the PDF documentation build, we move the PDF > > documentation to a package that may be omitted entirely. > [...] > > Hello Peter, > > is this a suggestion, a requirement or a hard target? i.e. would it > also be acceptable to simply support building without documentation, > generating a slightly stripped down version of libtasn1-6-dev?
I believe that it is something of a requirement, as Johannes Schauer put it to me in no uncertain terms when discussing the scope of my GSoC project :) It is also documented (along with the rationale) at https://wiki.debian.org/BuildProfileSpec#Profile_built_binary_packages Well, in this case it would be really... interesting... to find another package that depends on the presence of a PDF file in the libtasn1 development package, but I believe that you'd understand the general idea. > I would prefer to not introduce an additional binary package for the > documentation but if it is necessary for better bootstrapping I sure > would consider it. Yes, I quite understand that - an additional package does mean more maintenance, more work for the buildds (ok, well, not in the current setup, since this is an arch:all package), more space on the mirrors, more work on the end machines for installing/upgrading... But in this case, the requirement does seem to be a reasonable one. Of course, in the end it's your call as the package maintainer, none of this is quite set in stone yet, there is much more work to do on the bootstrapping front, and quite possibly there will turn out to be cases when other approaches will need to be chosen. However, for the present it seems that Wookey and Johannes Schauer would need some convincing to make an exception :) G'luck, Peter -- Peter Pentchev r...@ringlet.net r...@freebsd.org p.penc...@storpool.com PGP key: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint 2EE7 A7A5 17FC 124C F115 C354 651E EFB0 2527 DF13 This sentence is false.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature