Re: Moving GFDL documentation to non-free
W The usual package name is original package name-doc. Just to be sure, W you may want to check the changelogs of the packages with missing docs, W however. $ w3m -dump http://packages.debian.org/unstable/doc/|fgrep '[non-free]' finds some. I suppose some aren't ready yet, like tar. At least it still has man pages, though no more info pages. I wish there was a more systematic way than digging thru changelogs. Something one could use in a script. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Moving GFDL documentation to non-free
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 10:20:17AM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote: Hi. I'm just a lowly user with a bandwidth problem. Certainly was a shock to get back from town to find the documentation gone from the debs I brought back. However, I am to make one last trip to town so it's my one shot chance to download the new additional debs where that documentation now lies. I need to know the names of those additional packages though, so I can tell dpkg --set-selections. The usual package name is original package name-doc. Just to be sure, you may want to check the changelogs of the packages with missing docs, however. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, Ashes to Ashes, stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Moving GFDL documentation to non-free
Hi. I'm just a lowly user with a bandwidth problem. Certainly was a shock to get back from town to find the documentation gone from the debs I brought back. However, I am to make one last trip to town so it's my one shot chance to download the new additional debs where that documentation now lies. I need to know the names of those additional packages though, so I can tell dpkg --set-selections. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Moving GFDL documentation to non-free
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I was told unequivocally that just shipping the whole tarball for make, which is 1.5MB large, would not be acceptable. I ended up I was suspecting this. having to create two new .orig.tar.gz files, with minimal overlap in contents, (remove docs from one, and the sources from the other, and leave some build infrastructure in both) and uploading that. OK. It sounds sane to me. I also called these source packages make-dfsg and make-doc-non-dfsg, but I think others have let the package in main be still called foo (despite removing non-free bits from it), and just append .dfsg to the upstream version number. I was not comfortable with that, but your mileage may vary. Well, appending .dfsg to the upstream version would probably be less confusing for users, but as you said YMMV. Thank you very much for your feedback. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: Moving GFDL documentation to non-free
On 10604 March 1977, Jérôme Marant wrote: The simplest way I can see is to take the pristine tarball and rename to foo-non-free of foo-non-dfsg, and to just install what was removed from the modified tarball in main. However, the Emacs tarball is 18 megs big so I'm not sure ftp masters would allow it in the archive. Rebuild the tarball. You need to do that anyways for main, so build a new one for non-free too, containing only the rest and what may be needed to built it. Dont rename the source package for main too. Was allowed for make, but its better to not rename. -- bye Joerg [http://www.youam.net/stuff/info...-hosting.de/server-info.php] [...] und der Arbeitsspeicher recht schnell und hoch ist. (Wie hoch? 2cm, 4cm? Am besten an die Decke nageln, was? pgpqfF6zFFAFF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Moving GFDL documentation to non-free
Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 10604 March 1977, Jérôme Marant wrote: The simplest way I can see is to take the pristine tarball and rename to foo-non-free of foo-non-dfsg, and to just install what was removed from the modified tarball in main. However, the Emacs tarball is 18 megs big so I'm not sure ftp masters would allow it in the archive. Rebuild the tarball. You need to do that anyways for main, so build a new one for non-free too, containing only the rest and what may be needed to built it. Dont rename the source package for main too. Was allowed for make, but its better to not rename. I intend to do that. Thanks. -- Jérôme Marant
Moving GFDL documentation to non-free
Hi, The Emacs documentation is going to be moved to non-free since it is GFDLed with invariant sections. I'd like know how packagers who have the same problem usually handle this, especially the non-free package. The simplest way I can see is to take the pristine tarball and rename to foo-non-free of foo-non-dfsg, and to just install what was removed from the modified tarball in main. However, the Emacs tarball is 18 megs big so I'm not sure ftp masters would allow it in the archive. Is the common trend doing this, or do packagers just create custom tarballs by leaving only what's necessary plus a minimal custom build infrastructure? Thanks. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: Moving GFDL documentation to non-free
On 24 Mar 2006, Jérôme Marant told this: Hi, The Emacs documentation is going to be moved to non-free since it is GFDLed with invariant sections. I'd like know how packagers who have the same problem usually handle this, especially the non-free package. The simplest way I can see is to take the pristine tarball and rename to foo-non-free of foo-non-dfsg, and to just install what was removed from the modified tarball in main. However, the Emacs tarball is 18 megs big so I'm not sure ftp masters would allow it in the archive. Is the common trend doing this, or do packagers just create custom tarballs by leaving only what's necessary plus a minimal custom build infrastructure? I was told unequivocally that just shipping the whole tarball for make, which is 1.5MB large, would not be acceptable. I ended up having to create two new .orig.tar.gz files, with minimal overlap in contents, (remove docs from one, and the sources from the other, and leave some build infrastructure in both) and uploading that. I also called these source packages make-dfsg and make-doc-non-dfsg, but I think others have let the package in main be still called foo (despite removing non-free bits from it), and just append .dfsg to the upstream version number. I was not comfortable with that, but your mileage may vary. manoj -- Where does it go when you flush? Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
