On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 12:00:12PM +0100, Jérôme Warnier wrote: > Le jeudi 22 décembre 2005 à 19:34 -0600, Kenneth Pronovici a écrit : > > > Package: cedar-backup2 > > > Version: 2.7.1-1 > > > Severity: wishlist > > > > > > I noticed the documentation is available both as PDF (compressed as .gz) > > > and html. Please do not package both in the same packages. > > > > The various manual formats serve different purposes. While the HTML > > manual is good for online browsing, the PDF manual is best for printing. > > I think it does serve a worthwhile purpose to include both. > > > > As an alternative, I might consider splitting the documentation into a > > separate package. However, it doesn't seem like debian-devel has come > > to a consensus on how large documentation must be (either in absolute > > terms or relative to the remainder of the package) before it should be > > split off. Do you have any thoughts on this? > I was thinking about: autogenerating the documentation from sources (as > it seems to be DocBook, it should be doable). > And then, ship the documentation as separate package, mostly because it > is bigger (wrt to disk space) than the program itself.
Er, the only question we're entertaining here is whether the single Debian source package needs to be split into two binary packages (one for the program, one for documentation). There isn't a need to build the documentation as part of the Debian build process (see below). I was hoping to hear your thoughts on why it is worth splitting the single source package into two binary packages. I would potentially be willing to do it here, but I'm not yet convinced it's worth it. > But, it seems that to include the pictures in the PDF version (I read > that in the sources, in doc/docbook.txt), you need the Jimi Java > library, which is non-free, see: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/11/msg00106.html > > And btw, I'm sure that shipping the PDF with the pictures is not > DFSG-compliant. I did not look at it, but is it? First, let's be clear about where the documentation is built. The documentation is built "upstream" and is included in the original source tarball. The Debian package just includes the upstream documentation in the correct directory (/usr/share/doc), but does *not* rebuild it, because there's no good reason to do so. As such, the Debian package does not have any dependency on Jimi. You can see this clearly by checking the build-dependecies in debian/control. As far as the DFSG goes -- the DFSG only applies to the licensing of the software in question. In this case, the licenses for everything in Cedar Backup (including the graphics) is free per the DFSG. I have been extremely careful about this, the point of documenting every piece of code and every file not created directly be me, and ensuring that the license is appropriate. You may be conflating the issue of whether you can rebuild the documentation using software in Debian with the issue of whether the software itself is freely licensed. These really are two separate issues. Debian policy (section 2.2.1) does state that the software to be placed in main "must not require a package outside of main for compilation or execution". In this case, because the Debian package chooses to not rebuild the documentation, Cedar Backup has no such dependencies and is appropriate for main. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
