On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 12:58:49PM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote: > Maybe worth @comment'ing the empty share/doc/open62541/open62541.html/ > directory?
Yes. I do not want to build the html documentation as it adds so many files to the package. It can be read online anyway. Having a pdf in the package is useful for offline developent. For that I had to add some missing build dependencies to print/texlive/texmf. I guess splitting a -doc sub package is not worth it. > Is there a reason to use share/open62541/examples rather than the standard > i.e. share/examples/open62541? I was to lazy to patch it :-) Fixed. > I don't think it's worth bytecode-compiling the tools. Makes sense. portcheck suggested to do it, but your arguments are better. I have build the library with debug symbols as I want to do development on top of it. Do we have a policy for that? New port attached. bluhm
open62541.tgz
Description: application/tar-gz
