Le Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 06:06:01AM +0200, Johannes Schauer a écrit : > > please consider adding "nodoc" as a possible DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS value to > § 4.9.1 [1]. > > The value "nodoc" or "nodocs" is currently used in 72 source packages > according to [2]. Documenting "nodoc" in policy would avoid the > confusion between the two. The singular should be preferred because > "nocheck" is written in singular as well and because *-doc packages have > the singular as a postfix.
Hello Johannes, I think that it is a good idea. Here is a draft patch. When writing this patch, I became unsure if “*-doc” packages are the best description for the binary packages that will not be built. Should it be any package in the “documentation” section instead ? Or should it be kept vague to give flexibility to the maintainer to do the right thing ? I opted for this choice and wrote “packages containing the generated documentation”. Do you or others have modifications to propose ? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
>From 512bca9ac18d8bd4e07eba0b02463369d40420a0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Charles Plessy <ple...@debian.org> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 06:37:41 +0900 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?Document=20the=20=E2=80=98nodoc=E2=80=99=20buil?= =?UTF-8?q?d=20option.?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Closes: #759186 --- policy.sgml | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml index 6eac491..62d2bdf 100644 --- a/policy.sgml +++ b/policy.sgml @@ -2256,6 +2256,11 @@ zope. This tag says to not run any build-time test suite provided by the package. </item> + <tag>nodoc</tag> + <item> + Do not build the documentation and do not build the binary + packages containing the generated documentation. + </item> <tag>noopt</tag> <item> The presence of this tag means that the package should -- 2.0.1