Re: gEDA-dev: Re: [Gnucap-devel] Gnucap docs build failure on FC5(and other places)

[Dan McMahill <dan-at-NOSPAMmcmahill_dot_net>]

Russell Shaw wrote:
> Stuart Brorson wrote:
> 

> 
> 
> If you fill the package with PDFs, it'll get rejected or repackaged
> by any decent Debian maintainer to have a separate documentation package.
> With the current build problems, it's lucky to be accepted into any
> distribution at all.



>> As for the person who made the point that the problem was an autoconf
>> issue:  If you would care to actually do some work and send a patch to
>> fix the configure.ac file instead of proferring cheap advice, then I'd
>> stand up and take notice.   Otherwise, you're just blowing easy
>> advice out your @ss.  Tweaking the autotools so that they do the right
>> thing in every case is a difficult job.  You'd know that if you tried
>> to do some real implementation.


> I'm too busy doing real code to go on that diversion. Look up 
> AM_CONDITIONAL.

Both of you please stop.

The current build problems are minor and are a result of how the tarball 
was created.

There are AM_CONDITIONALS in place to specifically have things work 
correctly with and without latex/dvipdfm/hevea installed.

In terms of breaking apart into 2 packages, a full install currently 
takes 3.5 Mb (8.7 Mb if you don't strip the binaries).  Out of that the 
.dvi file takes 430 kB and the .pdf file takes 560 kB and the .html 
files take 517 kB.  If the debian package maintainers feel that saving 
the extra 1.5 Mb out of 3.5 Mb is worth maintaining a seperate package 
then they can feel free to ask that the build system provide a way to do 
this.  Speaking as the NetBSD pkgsrc maintainer for gnucap, there is no 
way I'm going to maintain a separate package when the savings are that 
small.


-Dan



_______________________________________________
geda-dev mailing list
geda-dev@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev