[Pkg-crosswire-devel] BT docs, help and manpages
dmitrij.ledkov at gmail.com
Sun Feb 1 02:10:40 GMT 2009
2009/2/1 Jonathan Marsden <jmarsden at fastmail.fm>:
> Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>>> OK; we're on the same page on this one, good. Are there any BibleTime
>>> developers and/or Crosswire people here who would be either happy or
>>> unhappy if we split the documentation out into a separate binary package
>>> (which could be arch-independent of course, so avoiding this lintian
>> Knowing how "kind" upstream is I would split everything in
>> /usr/share/ into one bibletime-common or bibletime-data. Cause I
>> don't think we are at the point of splitting it further per language
>> cause I don't (yet) want to maintain each language and figure out how
>> to make apt download the correct language package.
> Sounds reasonable, but see below about Help usage. I suppose we could
> do a Depends: bibletime-common in the bibletime binary package?
> BTW, Jordan Mantha (aka LaserJock) is probably our guy for how to do
> per-language stuff like that, I'm pretty sure he said he'd done it for
> his distribution already. But that is a luxury which can wait.
>> BTW I did this for gnomesword (I should push changes for a review).
> Sure. Except that it is now Xiphos (I'm waiting to see how some
> non-Greek-speakers will mis-pronounce that name...) :)
> I did notice that BT seems to be using these documentation trees in its
> Help menu, so we need to check that if you install it without them, you
> don't get nasty error messages when you try and use Help :)
> [Aside... I just noticed that right now BT's help wants to browse these
> documents under /usr/local/share/bibletime/docs ... which happens to
> work here, only because I did a manual install of BT earlier, but we
> can't package it that way! /usr/local is out of bounds for packaged
> software... ]
I am sure that a small prefix in the rules will put it in the right place
>>> One thought: has anyone tried building and running this version of
>>> BibleTime against the current libsword6 packages?? If that combination
>>> works, then we could get BT updated in Debian (experimental) even before
>>> we have libsword7 in a suitably finished state for upload.
>> Well that would be cool =D I'm still working on libsword7. I'm playing with
>> symbols files so far they are misbehaving. But I should sort it out
> OK. What exactly is going wrong with that? Do you have an example of
> what breaks?
I don't know =D I've branched off and started from scratch. Waiting
build results since it's the AMD64 that misbehaves =D
>> Then the only thing left would be manpages.
> Manpages for Bibletime: I see no lintian warnings about man pages at
> all. Am I missing something?
That was about libsword.
> Manpages for bibledit: I just grabbed the new manpages from their git
> (Teus is doing a lot to help us get this packaged!), editing them
> minimally, and added them my new branch at
> lp:~pkgcrosswire/bibledit/manpages -- and then proposed that for merge
> and put you as the reviewer :)
> Manpages for libsword7: This is a different kind of issue -- do we need
> one manpage for each documented library API function? We didn't have
> them for libsword6, but that was a different era and maybe the rules are
> tighter now than they used to be about that?
There are ~2000 symbols exported by the library =D No debian doesn't
force you to do that. There are a few executables that libsword is building
installmgr, cacheing-indexing thing and a few converters. They need manpages.
PS. I think there is a difference when my emails arrive via
1) My gmail --> you
2) My comments on launchpad --> launchpad --> you
3) My gmail --> Alioth mailing list --> you
And possibly 1 and 3 again but from Thunderbird/Gmail.
With best regards
Ледков Дмитрий Юрьевич
More information about the Pkg-crosswire-devel