[Pkg-freedict-devel] Re: plan for freedict packages

[Kęstutis Biliūnas]

Hi,

Št, 2006 12 30 12:51 +0100, Joost van Baal rašė:

> > It is complicated, but I see your point. Do I must replace to the
> > previous state everything already?
> 
> You've done that, in commit 35.  Thanks.  I'll now try to massage
> freedict-tools so that freedict-deu-nld, freedict-eng-lat,
> freedict-kur-tur and freedict-swa-eng build.  Once that's done, and
> freedict-tools is lin{tian,da} clean, I'll upload freedict-tools.

If these dictionaries will builds successfully, then the majority of
dictionaries will be OK, but not all. For others dictionaries maybe
turns out, that there is still missing some scripts in the
freedict-tools (i.e. not included  from the upstream source).

Now about the changelog files in the freedict-LLL-LLL packages.
These all packages are new, all names of the source packages are
new. So no need to do this file with all old  content from "freedict"
source package, I think. But if binary package is not new and it have
epoch number, then it will have the entry in the changelog file like
this:

  * First release from own separate sources, with epoch number 1.
    Previously, the binary package was generated from the "freedict"
    source package.

and the entry in the debian/rules like this:
 WITH_EPOCH = true

And in such case the Makefile.Debian will copy the changelog.Debian.old
file from debian-scripts directory and will place this file in the
/usr/share/doc/freedict-LLL-LLL directory of the binary package.
Do you agree with this proposal? If you agree I will implement that.

And how about replacing the README files in the freedict-LLL-LLL source
packages with only one sentence:

"About editing and creating the patches for this package see
/usr/share/doc/freedict-tools-dev/README.devel"

I think so is sufficient. What are you thinking about it?

Best regards,
-- 
Kęstutis Biliūnas <kebil at kaunas.init.lt>