On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Bill Nottingham wrote:
I just recieved one of these bugs (#492446), and I'm not sure
why we'd do this for any package.
If we split the docs like this:
- it would be inconsistent per-package
-- so an admin wouldn't know whether a package had docs or not in
the main package without manually trying to install a foo-doc
subpackage
-- they would no longer be there by default if they're needed
Hence, why do this, when rpm already has a --nodocs flag and
macro that can be used for space savings on live images?
yum's tsflags option in yum.conf also accepts 'nodocs'
unfortunately, if you're using rpm -V it won't know about --nodocs being
passed in on install.
Sure it does:
[root@localhost ~]# rpm -U --nodocs /tmp/telnet-0.17-42.fc9.x86_64.rpm
[root@localhost ~]# rpm -qs telnet
normal /usr/bin/telnet
not installed /usr/share/man/man1/telnet.1.gz
[root@localhost ~]# rpm -V telnet
[root@localhost ~]#
Verify checks out clean as the recorded file state says the file is not
even *supposed* to be there. Compared to manually removing it:
[root@localhost ~]# rpm -U /tmp/telnet-0.17-42.fc9.x86_64.rpm
[root@localhost ~]# rm -f /usr/share/man/man1/telnet.1.gz
[root@localhost ~]# rpm -qs telnet
normal /usr/bin/telnet
normal /usr/share/man/man1/telnet.1.gz
[root@localhost ~]# rpm -V telnet
missing d /usr/share/man/man1/telnet.1.gz
[root@localhost ~]#
- Panu -
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
