Re: %doc package policy

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Toshio wrote:
On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 19:32 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:

On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 12:40 -1000, Warren Togami wrote:

By FC5, we should make it so nothing in our software relies on the existence of %doc installed files, that is stuff that ends up in /usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}.

rpm --excludedocs should create an installed system that works exactly the same during runtime. This is already the case for 99.99% of our packages, so complying with this rule would require very few changes.

Can we come to agreement on this and add this to packaging policy?

What does "rely on" mean here? The "Help" menu command in fontforge
accesses HTML files that are in the %doc directory. I think it actually
falls back to the web if it doesn't find the files, but say it didn't and displayed an error? Is that relying on the %doc files?


I know of at least one other packsge that does this.  I think this is
relying on the %doc file and would have to change under this policy.

There has also been the occasional tendency to punt on deciding whether
optional/example programs, init scripts, etc are useful enough to be in
the package by putting them in %doc.  I think under this policy we need
to be more careful about doing this.

Neither of these is a reason not to implement this policy.

-Toshio

Note that not everything under /usr/share/doc is %doc. This rule is only talking about stuff marked as %doc, not stuff under %files. /usr/share/doc can contain stuff listed in %files which is not excluded by rpm --excludedocs, I believe all the docs in /usr/share/doc/HTML/ are listed under %files instead of %doc. %doc should be for truly optional stuff that is not needed during runtime.

IMHO marking online documentation as %doc isn't great, because it puts it into a versioned directory. Versioned directory handling means more complexity when they must be referenced by applications.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=155425
This is an example that would be disallowed under this rule. The RPM gpg keys are clearly not documentation. It is currently included in the package as "%doc R*".

Warren Togami
wtogami@xxxxxxxxxx


[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Development]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux