Charles Plessy <ple...@debian.org> writes:
> 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”.
This is somewhat ambiguous about things like copyright and changelog,
which might be considered part of the documentation (since they're in
/usr/share/doc). How about this:
> --- 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
This tag says not to build any separate binary packages that contain
only documentation, and ideally to skip any time- or
resource-consuming build steps that only generate documentation.
Examples include Doxygen-generated documentation, generation of info
pages from Texinfo source, or generation of PDF files from TeX
documents.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
