Re: gcc-4.1 [gfdl] documentation packages for non-free
On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 11:02:16AM +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: > > Why is this a native Debian package? I know that the tarball it is based > > on is not one distributed as such by upstream, but it is based on files > > from an upstream source. The way you do it now, you can't see what you > > have changed in the documentation, because there is no diff.gz file. > > If I separate files taken from upstream into '.orig.tar.gz', where should I > place Makefile that I wrote to build documentation? > Since this file is not from upstream, looks like should place it > to .diff.gz > But if I do that, .orig.tar.gz file will be of little interest itself, > without .diff.gz It really doesn't matter if the orig.tar.gz is useful or not. > If the only reasoning to split is informationl, I guess a README file in > debian/, plus usage of dpatch if any patches will be added, will serve the > same purpose better. Well, in the Debian Policy, the only reason for making a native package is described in this way: "[The debian_revision] is optional; if it isn't present then the upstream_version may not contain a hyphen. This format represents the case where a piece of software was written specifically to be turned into a Debian package, and so there is only one "debianization" of it and therefore no revision indication is required." The GCC documentation is not written specifically to be turned into a Debian package. On the other hand, there is no MUST or MAY NOT in the Policy about native packages. > Also, with currently implemented versioning scheme, new -doc packages get > versions that dpkg will consider higher than old -doc packages that are > removed from archive, but stay on users systems. So, if users have > non-free in their sources, they will get new packages transparently. You can also do that if you keep the same versioning scheme as the current gcc packages, and just bump the Debian revision. Another advantage of making it a non-native package is that the orig.tar.gz only has to be uploaded once for every upstream release, whenever you change something and create a new package with an increased Debian revision, you only need to upload the diff.gz to the archives. By the way, apart from this, I can see nothing wrong with your package :) -- Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards, Guus Sliepen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: gcc-4.1 [gfdl] documentation packages for non-free
> On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 12:06:02AM +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: > > I've created gcc-4.1-doc-non-dfsg package, intended for non-free. This > > package builds several binary packages (cpp-4.1-doc, gcc-4.1-doc, > > gfortran-4.1-doc, tree;ang-4.1-doc), that contain all files - man > > pages, info and html docs - that have been in gcc-4.1 4.1.1-10 package > > [last version before documentation removal], but are not in the > > current 4.1.1ds1-13 package. > > > > I'm going to upload this to non-free. > > But before that, I'd like interested people to look into the package, > > and give any comments they feel appropriate. > > Currently, I've put the package to > > http://zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su/~nikita/debian/gcc-doc/ > > Why is this a native Debian package? I know that the tarball it is based > on is not one distributed as such by upstream, but it is based on files > from an upstream source. The way you do it now, you can't see what you > have changed in the documentation, because there is no diff.gz file. If I separate files taken from upstream into '.orig.tar.gz', where should I place Makefile that I wrote to build documentation? Since this file is not from upstream, looks like should place it to .diff.gz But if I do that, .orig.tar.gz file will be of little interest itself, without .diff.gz If the only reasoning to split is informationl, I guess a README file in debian/, plus usage of dpatch if any patches will be added, will serve the same purpose better. Also, with currently implemented versioning scheme, new -doc packages get versions that dpkg will consider higher than old -doc packages that are removed from archive, but stay on users systems. So, if users have non-free in their sources, they will get new packages transparently. One more question for all - maybe better to set Maintainer field of these packages to debian-gcc@lists.debian.org ? Nikita pgpCw385jTcYn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gcc-4.1 [gfdl] documentation packages for non-free
"Nikita V. Youshchenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm one of those people beaten by recent removal of gcc > documentation. Both myself and people to whom I recommend Debian, > *need* gcc documentation to be available in the system. The FSF agree with your position. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-doc.html> > So I had four options: > - start a new flamewar on the issue, > - stop to use Debian (and to recomment it), > - install documentation in non-package form, > - create appropriate documentation debs (for non-free). Your situation is the same as any DD who finds the software they want to package is licensed incompatibly with the DFSG. You can ask politely but firmly for the software to be licensed so that Debian can include it. > Since I'm a DD, the only real option for me was the last one. Fortunately, packaging the documentation for non-free isn't incompatible with continuing to ask the copyright holder for a free license. > I've created gcc-4.1-doc-non-dfsg package, intended for non-free. Thank you for your work! -- \"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." -- | `\ Pablo Picasso | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc-4.1 [gfdl] documentation packages for non-free
Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: > Hello. > > I'm one of those people beaten by recent removal of gcc documentation. Both > myself and people to whom I recommend Debian, *need* gcc documentation to > be available in the system. > > So I had four options: > - start a new flamewar on the issue, > - stop to use Debian (and to recomment it), > - install documentation in non-package form, > - create appropriate documentation debs (for non-free). > > Since I'm a DD, the only real option for me was the last one. > > I've created gcc-4.1-doc-non-dfsg package, intended for non-free. This > package builds several binary packages (cpp-4.1-doc, gcc-4.1-doc, > gfortran-4.1-doc, tree;ang-4.1-doc), that contain all files - man pages, > info and html docs - that have been in gcc-4.1 4.1.1-10 package [last > version before documentation removal], but are not in the current > 4.1.1ds1-13 package. > > I'm going to upload this to non-free. > But before that, I'd like interested people to look into the package, and > give any comments they feel appropriate. > Currently, I've put the package to > http://zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su/~nikita/debian/gcc-doc/ Looks good at a first glance. Thank you for your work. Thiemo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc-4.1 [gfdl] documentation packages for non-free
On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 12:06:02AM +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: > I've created gcc-4.1-doc-non-dfsg package, intended for non-free. This > package builds several binary packages (cpp-4.1-doc, gcc-4.1-doc, > gfortran-4.1-doc, tree;ang-4.1-doc), that contain all files - man pages, > info and html docs - that have been in gcc-4.1 4.1.1-10 package [last > version before documentation removal], but are not in the current > 4.1.1ds1-13 package. > > I'm going to upload this to non-free. > But before that, I'd like interested people to look into the package, and > give any comments they feel appropriate. > Currently, I've put the package to > http://zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su/~nikita/debian/gcc-doc/ Why is this a native Debian package? I know that the tarball it is based on is not one distributed as such by upstream, but it is based on files from an upstream source. The way you do it now, you can't see what you have changed in the documentation, because there is no diff.gz file. -- Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards, Guus Sliepen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: Digital signature
gcc-4.1 [gfdl] documentation packages for non-free
Hello. I'm one of those people beaten by recent removal of gcc documentation. Both myself and people to whom I recommend Debian, *need* gcc documentation to be available in the system. So I had four options: - start a new flamewar on the issue, - stop to use Debian (and to recomment it), - install documentation in non-package form, - create appropriate documentation debs (for non-free). Since I'm a DD, the only real option for me was the last one. I've created gcc-4.1-doc-non-dfsg package, intended for non-free. This package builds several binary packages (cpp-4.1-doc, gcc-4.1-doc, gfortran-4.1-doc, tree;ang-4.1-doc), that contain all files - man pages, info and html docs - that have been in gcc-4.1 4.1.1-10 package [last version before documentation removal], but are not in the current 4.1.1ds1-13 package. I'm going to upload this to non-free. But before that, I'd like interested people to look into the package, and give any comments they feel appropriate. Currently, I've put the package to http://zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su/~nikita/debian/gcc-doc/ If things will go well, I'll create similar things for other gcc version, and also gcc-doc-non-dfsg that will play the same role for documentation as gcc-defaults package plays for compiler itself. Nikita pgpsEkxdQzs0R.pgp Description: PGP signature
