Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.maint.java > #9896
| From | Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.maint.java |
| Subject | Re: RFS for libimglib2-java and libparsington-java |
| Date | 2017-08-15 00:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uevIB-1jj-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <uaM5k-8gE-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <uaMyl-f4-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <udGd3-2pD-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <ueu0a-dy-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <ueutd-n0-43@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | debian.org |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw
Am 14.08.2017 um 22:45 schrieb Ghislain Vaillant: > > > On 14/08/17 21:11, Markus Koschany wrote: > >> 2. I saw the no-doc build profile annotations in debian/control. Is that >> something that you specifically need for libimglib2-java or is there >> another reason? > > See > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.html#s-4.0.0, > section 4.9.1: > >> I believe it would not hurt but I am interested to know >> more about the advantages and whether this should be used for other -doc >> packages too. > > Not sure what the advantages are, but adding support for it is not > difficult. At least compared to other packages I maintain where explicit > guards need to be added in the rules file to support nodoc builds. It's quite late here in Germany and I still suffer from jet lag effects but I believe we are talking about two different things right now. Policy 4.9.1 is about the nodoc option to suppress building documentation at all. So you could basically run something like DEB_BUILD_OPTION=nodoc gbp buildpackage and then your -doc packages won't be built at all. However your annotations in debian/control are for bootstrapping debian packages. [1] I believe you don't need them if you want to support building your package without doc packages. This is a more general tool chain issue for Java packages. At the moment I'm not sure how well it is supported but it is certainly something we want to support. > I took this opportunity to bump the standards version to 4.0.1. Right, good catch. Regards, Markus [1] https://wiki.debian.org/BuildProfileSpec
Back to linux.debian.maint.java | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
RFS for libimglib2-java and libparsington-java Ghislain Vaillant <ghisvail@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 14:00 +0200
Re: RFS for libimglib2-java and libparsington-java tony mancill <tmancill@debian.org> - 2017-08-04 16:50 +0200
Re: RFS for libimglib2-java and libparsington-java Ghislain Vaillant <ghisvail@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 17:20 +0200
Re: RFS for libimglib2-java and libparsington-java tony mancill <tmancill@debian.org> - 2017-08-12 17:10 +0200
Re: RFS for libimglib2-java and libparsington-java Ghislain Vaillant <ghisvail@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 18:30 +0200
Re: RFS for libimglib2-java and libparsington-java Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org> - 2017-08-14 22:20 +0200
Re: RFS for libimglib2-java and libparsington-java Ghislain Vaillant <ghisvail@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 22:50 +0200
Re: RFS for libimglib2-java and libparsington-java Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org> - 2017-08-15 00:10 +0200
Re: RFS for libimglib2-java and libparsington-java Ghislain Vaillant <ghisvail@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 11:20 +0200
Re: RFS for libimglib2-java and libparsington-java Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org> - 2017-08-16 20:50 +0200
Re: RFS for libimglib2-java and libparsington-java Ghislain Vaillant <ghisvail@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 21:30 +0200
Re: RFS for libimglib2-java and libparsington-java Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org> - 2017-08-16 22:30 +0200
Re: RFS for libimglib2-java and libparsington-java Ghislain Vaillant <ghisvail@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 10:30 +0200
Re: RFS for libimglib2-java and libparsington-java Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org> - 2017-08-18 15:20 +0200
csiph-web