[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [bug #41125] -make documentation is un-installable
From: |
Richard Frith-Macdonald |
Subject: |
Re: [bug #41125] -make documentation is un-installable |
Date: |
Tue, 7 Jan 2014 20:32:51 +0000 |
On 7 Jan 2014, at 18:08, Markus Hitter <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> For those on the -dev mailing list, we're talking about this bug:
>
> https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?41125#comment0
>
>
> Am 07.01.2014 15:17, schrieb Richard Frith-Macdonald:
>
>> I might guess that the issue you mean [...]
>
> Instead of guessing I'd prefer you'd try with the shell snippets I
> provided. They clearly expose unintended results in at least 3 cases.
Again it seems we have some sort of communicatrions problem ... I'm just trying
to get you to clarify things please.
To me the term 'shell snippet' means a script to be executed and I haven't seen
you provide that.
So, again I'm guessing a bit ... the only think I can think of three of, were
three examples of trying to install documentation wikthout having first
installed gnustep-make. But if that's what you are referring to, why are you
asking me to 'try' them (particularly when I've already explained a few times
that installing gnustep-make is a prerequisite for everything else, and
build/install without gnustgep-make is not expected/intended to work)?
Perhaps you missed reading one or two of my emails (or perhaps I missed one of
yours)?
>> Perhaps I might guess that you mean, as Sebastian suggested, that you
>> want documentation to be built and installed along with gnustep-make
>> ... if so, that's not a (reasonable IMO) change request ... but since
Oops, sorry ... I see a mistake ... that was meant to be 'thats' a (not
unreasonable IMO) change request'. Hopefully the context of me already having
said I support the idea means you read as intended rather than as written)
>> what you are asking for is a change to overall policy rather than a
>> specific package, probably the mailing list makes more sense.
>
> Weird policy which prohibits to install documentation on its own.
No, the policy I was referring to was the one I mentioned earlier: that the
documentation for the core packages is not built/installed by default as part
of the packages.
> This
> prohibits not only packaging, but also cross-compilation, because in
> both cases is install root != system root.
I don't follow/understand the above.
Specifically, I don't know why building/installing documentation separately
from the frameworks would prevent packaging, and I don't see how anythng you do
with documentation could do anything with cross-compilation. Guiess I'm
missing something.
> That said, what you committed earlier today into README.packaging
> doesn't work. It isn't sufficient to package gnustep-make, it also has
> to be installed.
Yes, you build/install gnustep-make before anything else. That's documented in
lots of places. Perhaps too many?
> Setting aside debian-type packaging doesn't build by
> binary package, but by source package, which makes it impossible to
> install a package not yet built,
I'm afraid I don't understand that sentence either ... however, I *am* getting
the idea you want to do packaging (specifically for debian?) here ... something
that wasn't initially clear.
Also, for some reason you don't want to build/install gnustep-make, but it's
not at all clear why?
> Documentation/GNUmakefile line 37ff
> attempts to go such a route without packaging, but it's buggy and/or
> incomplete. But I mentioned the latter already.
I don't know what 37ff means so again I'm guessing a bit; I think you are
referring to the capability to build a local/temporary copy of the
documentation so that you can look at the documentation to start with. This is
done by configuring (with default values) and installing gnustep-make in a
temporary location, and then using that to build/install the local/temporary
documentation. As far as I know it works properly for its intended purpose
(lets you view the documentation before you decide how you want to configure
gnustep-make). It can't install the documentation because, at this point you
haven't configured/installed gnustep-make, so the eventual installation
location is unknown. Maybe you find it buggy because you don't know the local
layout for the files? In which case, perhaps you could improve that by
defining a different filesystem layout to be used by the temporary installation
of gnustep-make, and having the makefile print out the paths to the
documentation when it finished building for instance.
> I have another ~15 bugs similar to this one stacked.
Well, I'm still trying to establish how to help you on this one ... I think it
needs a clear statement of an immediate problem so that people can suggest
solutions.
I've seen two documentation related bug reports from you recently: one (41026)
is hopefully fixed in trunk.
The other (41125) was trying to install documentation the wrong way. Clearly
you are not satisfied with being told the 'right' way to do it. So please
explain what the problem is with installing things the normal/documented way.
How is the standard installation process getting in the way of what you are
trying to do?
You can have multiple copies of gnustep-make installed, with different
filesystem layouts etc, so it really ought to be possible to create any sort of
combination of packages you like.
For 15 others, if they are like this one, then they would make sense as queries
on the mailing list, if they are like 41026 then simple bug reports are
appropriate (I realise it's sometimes hard to tell the difference between the
two though).
- Re: [bug #41125] -make documentation is un-installable, Markus Hitter, 2014/01/07
- Re: [bug #41125] -make documentation is un-installable,
Richard Frith-Macdonald <=
- Re: [bug #41125] -make documentation is un-installable, Markus Hitter, 2014/01/07
- Re: [bug #41125] -make documentation is un-installable, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2014/01/08
- Re: [bug #41125] -make documentation is un-installable, Niels Grewe, 2014/01/08
- Re: [bug #41125] -make documentation is un-installable, Markus Hitter, 2014/01/08
- Re: [bug #41125] -make documentation is un-installable, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2014/01/08
- Re: [bug #41125] -make documentation is un-installable, Markus Hitter, 2014/01/08
- Re: [bug #41125] -make documentation is un-installable, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2014/01/08
- Re: [bug #41125] -make documentation is un-installable, Sebastian Reitenbach, 2014/01/08
- Re: [bug #41125] -make documentation is un-installable, Riccardo Mottola, 2014/01/08
- Re: [bug #41125] -make documentation is un-installable, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2014/01/08