> I do not see anything in that commit that suggests that `dh_installman`
> does not honor `nodoc`. What I am getting is that you wish that `dh`
> would skip hook targets for any program that might react to `nodoc`
> similar to `nostrip`.
>
> Assuming we agree on this being the ask, my answer that there is a
> difference here in that `dh_installman` (etc.) operates during a `nodoc`
> build. That is, I cannot omit the calls to `dh_installman` or
> `dh_installdoc` as they still have things to do (such as re-encode any
> manpage installed to UTF-8 or install the copyright file into the
> package). Therefore, I do not plan to extend the `dh` feature to `nodoc`
> as it cannot tell whether said hook target might still be useful under
> `nodoc` or not.
>
> As an example based off mount-zip, it would not be unreasonable for you
> to unconditionally remove the manpage rather than installing the
> pre-built one in `execute_before_dh_installman` and then conditionally
> regenerate it as an alternative to conditionally removing it and
> conditionally regenerating it. We do not have a common baseline for this
> and therefore `dh` cannot "optimize" for either way.
>
> Best regards,
> Niels
>
> PS: Note that the semantics of `nodoc` are very poorly defined compared
> to `nostrip` or `nocheck`, which does not help either. Unlike the
> others, `nodoc` is just "skip problematic documentation" rather than
> "skip all documentation" (case in point being we still one copyright
> files, NEWS files, and changelogs)
If dh_installman doesn't support nodoc as written in its manpage, then maybe
the manpage should be changed.
For instance this may have to be removed since I was mistaken by it.
"In compat 11 and later, it also supports the default searchdir plus --
sourcedir like dh_install(1) and has the advantage that it respects the nodoc
build profile (unlike dh_install(1))."
Regards
Fab
