Hello, On Wed 10 Jul 2024 at 02:38am +02, Aymeric Agon-Rambosson wrote:
> Hi Sean, > > Le mardi 9 juillet 2024 à 21:56, Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> a > écrit : > >> If we don't rebuild the docs, it's hard to be confident that it *can* be >> rebuilt with only tools in main. And if it can't be rebuilt with only tools >> in main, it's not DFSG-free. > > I should have been clearer in the message. The docs that we are shipping are > the info and html versions, and those we still build (from the > upstream-provided texi file). They are not provided by upstream, so we have to > build them. We can be confident that we can build them only with tools in main > (in fact, only texinfo is needed), because we do. > > What we are not doing anymore is rebuilding the texi file from the org file, > despite the fact that both are provided by upstream and we ship none of them > to our users. This rebuilding of the texi file was the cause of the bug and a > hassle, to be honest (upstream uses extra features in the texinfo backend that > forced you to package ox-texinfo-plus only for this in 2020, a package that > has now been obsoleted by upstream). My thinking was that if upstream is nice > enough to provide the source code documentation in two different languages > (org and texi), we are free to use the most practical one. Unfortunately this isn't how DFSG works. Whether or not we ship the files to users is not relevant. We must be able to rebuild the files from the preferred source for modification. If we don't know that we can rebuild the .texi from the .org using only what's in Debian, then it would be an RC bug. -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
