[Build-common-hackers] Re: cdbs question

[Martin-Éric Racine]

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Colin Walters wrote:

> [You aren't subscribed to this list, right?  So I should keep CCing
> you?]

Well... I suppose that I could subscribe, now that I have been writing myself a
CDBS HOW-TO that might eventually reach a publishable stage...

> > # FIXME:  Stupid kludge to get around ChangeLog handling contradictions=
 between
> > # Makefile (install target moves it to /usr/share/doc/$(package)/Change=
Log) and
> > # CDBS (dh_installchangelog creates /usr/share/doc/$(package)/changelog=
.gz too)
> > 
> > binary-post-install/foobar::
> 
> I would hook this on install/foobar, personally.  It will do the same thi=
ng,
> but it makes more sense to me there, because you're changing how the
> upstream install works, not how the Debian one works.

Agreed and done.
 
> > IMHO, it is perfectly logical for the Makefile to install all the docum=
entation
> > itself, but then by the time debhelper.mk does its thing, README and Ch=
angeLog
> > get processed all over again.  Any way to avoid this mess?  Thanks.
> 
> Maybe dh_installchangelogs should delete ChangeLog itself if it's install=
ed.

That could make sense, since it already produces a compressed version. 

-- 
Martin-Éric Racine, ICT Consultant
http://www.pp.fishpool.fi/~q-funk/