Hi!
>Hello again Gianfranco (and lots of cc:),
(dropped them, lets keep only the bug)
>OK, I'll give that a stab. Do you have any example packages you
>know that use this technique already? I could then use a working
>one to ensure that I'm using a good model.
nope :( nothing comes in my mind right now (well I maintain borgbackup in a
similar way FWIW)
>was generated during build, rather than using the checked-in
>ldptool.1 file.
actually the timestamp seems correctly added, so it should work to me
>I added this .egg-info removal line because the directory did remain
>even after 'debclean', That meant that a second build from the same
>directory would fail.
I did remove the rm line, did twice the dpkg-buildpackage and it was successful.
maybe you aren't calling correctly the ./debian/rules clean target?
>Not really. Not all systems have these files. And, some that have >been
>distributed are different or broken. But!
>
>The short version is that all of these files are used only for the
>testing suite and are, therefore, included in the release tarball,
>but are not shipped with the software.
>
>In the installed package, yes, the 'ldptool' software would rely on:
>
> ldp-docbook-dsssl
> ldp-docbook-xsl
> docbook-dsssl
>
>Oh, and yes, that means I should add all of the other dependencies
>so that 'ldptool' works. I forgot about that step.
indeed, and what about running the testsuite against the system packages?
if you use them at runtime, you need also to run tests against them :)
>As soon as I figure out how to get one package accepted, I plan on
>overhauling the ldp-docbook-{dsssl,xsl} packages for Debian.
wonderful!
>Is it considered embedded if it is in the source tarball, but not in >the
>binary package?
yes, but not a big issue, just mention them in copyright correctly
(you might want to look at copyrights of the respective Debian packages)
>This is utterly fabricated test data to exercise the test suite of
>the software.
>
>Perhaps I can simply remove all of the commented out bits of the
>debian/copyright file, if you can confirm that the copyright
>information is only required for the binary package.
no, all the source needs to be listed here.
>I assumed at first that this was required for every single file in
>the source package. I think I have inferred in the last few days
>(osmotically) that this is only necessary for the files in the
>binary package. Is that true?
no.
cheers!
(please let me know if I missed some points or you have doubts!)
G.
