Can you install this to a local directory with `DESTDIR` and use `tree` to
display the result in CI? Otherwise subtle mistakes can't be spotted in a CI
run.
Thank you again!
Oh, I forgot to reply to this last item.
I'm not sure what's best. Either we can drop installing the licence (and
require that downstream always handles it themselves), or we can leave it
as-is (which helps some distros, but others have to move it elsewhere).
I'll leave that up to you :)
Hi Hugo,
before applying your patches, I went ahead and corrected your commits to avoid
another round of patches for these trivial changes. I hope you don't mind.
Thank you for your contribution and maintaining the package for it for Alpine!
I'd rather have a separate `doc` rule that (optionally) builds the documentation
with scdoc, but seeing as it's standard to build documentation on invoking
`make` it's probably better to instead not mark scdoc as an optional dependency.
Can you remove the "optional" marker for scdoc in the README?
`${PREFIX}/share/licenses` is the license directory on Alpine and Arch, for
example, but Debian expects the dep5 copyright file in
`${PREFIX}/share/doc/${PACKAGE}` without any original LICENSE file installed
anywhere.
Because of this the LICENSE ideally shouldn't be installed in the `install`
step and installation of it to the correct place (and in the correct format)
should be left to downstream IMO. Your opinion on this is appreciated, though!
Thank you for your contribution!
Hi Hugo,
before applying your patches, I went ahead and corrected your commits to avoid
another round of patches for these trivial changes. I hope you don't mind.
Thank you for your contribution and maintaining the package for it for Alpine!
Can you install this to a local directory with `DESTDIR` and use `tree` to
display the result in CI? Otherwise subtle mistakes can't be spotted in a CI
run.
Thank you again!