On Mon, 2004-07-19 at 22:24, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Steven Pritchard (steve@xxxxxxxxx) said:
> > So should those packages be renamed to whatever-doc (or *-doc be
> > renamed to *-docs)? Or maybe we should just make sure all of the
> > packages have a Provides: foo-doc[s] so getting the name wrong still
> > works (at least for apt).
>
> Frankly, I've been of the opinion that the docs should be
> merged into the main package, and can be installed with
> --excludedocs if people want that. I'm probably in the
> minority though (and the PHP manual makes this excessive. :) )
FWIW, I have the totally opposite opinion, i.e. any docs beyond COPYING,
ChangeLog, ... goes into a subpackage and %doc becomes only a
convenience macro to put the stuff into
%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release} -- I'm not a friend of overly
excessive file coloring which makes (de)installing %doc or %lang colored
files after the fact a real PITA.
Nils
--
Nils Philippsen / Red Hat / nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- B. Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
