[Aptitude-devel] New version ready for sponser/upload

[Daniel Hartwig]

Hello

On 8 February 2012 20:47, Axel Beckert <abe at debian.org> wrote:
>
> Anyway, I tried 0.6.5 once on amd64 so far and it worked fine for me.
> :-)

Excellent.


Some of the lintian that can be addressed right away:

>
>
> P: aptitude-gtk: no-homepage-field
> P: aptitude: no-homepage-field
> [...]
>
> Do we have a homepage which we could put in?
>

Listed as the homepage on Alioth:

http://algebraicthunk.net/~dburrows/projects/aptitude/

Contains some info but looks generally unmaintained.  An old (0.4.11)
version of the manual is online there.

Most of the info is still relevent.  In particular, the contributing
details and contact information are up-to-date.

So, I think we can include this.


> I though found one discrepancy between the changelog and the lintian
> warnings. From the changelog:
>
>  * Register documentation with doc-base. Closes: #263318
>
> Nevertheless those warnings still pop up:
>
> I: aptitude-doc-cs: possible-documentation-but-no-doc-base-registration
> I: aptitude-doc-ja: possible-documentation-but-no-doc-base-registration
> I: aptitude-doc-fr: possible-documentation-but-no-doc-base-registration
> I: aptitude-doc-es: possible-documentation-but-no-doc-base-registration
>
> Seems as if only the English documentation is registered with
> doc-base. The mentioned bug report also only mentions aptitude-doc-en,
> but IMHO all translations of the manual should be treated the same
> way. At least http://wiki.debian.org/doc-base doesn't say anything
> about translations being handled differently.
>
> So IMHO either the changelog entry should be changed to mention that
> just the English manuals has been registered or all translations
> should be registered. I prefer the latter as it's a final solution. As
> far as I can see it should not touch the upstream part of aptitude,
> just the packaging, so that change should be no big problem.

Agreed.  I initially had thought that the translators would take of
the other doc-base files providing translated details.  After now
checking some other packages such as debian-faq-fr, they appear to use
English for the doc-base details.


Now, would you rather I quickly make these changes to the current
version and reupload, or leave them a week or two while I ready some
other packaging changes (build-indep for docs and split out many files
to aptitude-common)?


These other two I would definitely put off until next release or
later:

>
> I: aptitude-doc-cs: extended-description-is-probably-too-short
> I: aptitude-doc-ja: extended-description-is-probably-too-short
> I: aptitude-doc-fr: extended-description-is-probably-too-short
> I: aptitude-doc-en: extended-description-is-probably-too-short
> I: aptitude-doc-es: extended-description-is-probably-too-short
>
> I think we should do lintian overrides for those. The long description
> is fine IMHO.

A lot of -doc packages contain a fuller description of their main
package (typically copied verbatim).  Purely a matter of taste, but I
am more partial to that style…

The descriptions of all the packages should really be tweaked a bit.
"Terminal-based" is stale and seems to miss the real power of
aptitude, "featureful" is something I would consider in it's place.


>
> X: aptitude-doc-cs: duplicate-files usr/share/doc/aptitude/html/cs/ld-idp5307440.html usr/share/doc/aptitude/html/cs/ld-idp5988848.html
> X: aptitude-doc-cs: duplicate-files usr/share/doc/aptitude/html/cs/ld-idp5198864.html usr/share/doc/aptitude/html/cs/ld-idp5219696.html
…
>
> At the least the one case I looked at seemed to be textual screenshots
> of aptitude-curses. Surely not a big problem (neither in general nor
> in size), but an interesting one. Will investigate if no one else
> finds the reason it before me -- since I was the one who suggested
> that lintian test. :-)

The same screenshot is being used more than once and docbook generates
a new one of these detail pages for each instance.  It may be possible
reuse the same page, though I find docbook can be quite finicky in
such matters.

Not something I look forward to, given how long I have already spent
on some seemingly small docbook-related issues.


Ok, thanks for taking such a detailed look.