On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 23:57 +0200, Ville Skyttà wrote: > On Wednesday 15 December 2010, Jon Masters wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 22:25 +0200, Ville Skyttà wrote: > > > "Files marked as documentation must not cause additional dependencies > > > that aren't satisfied by the package itself or its dependency chain as > > > it would be if none of its files marked as documentation were included > > > in the package." > > > > Doesn't this exclude things like man pages, since they need a man page > > formatter to display them that would not be required were those docs not > > included in a package? If so, it seems like an excessive limitation. > > I thought about adding something that if there's a concern that people will > try to abuse the above guideline for something, some refinements could be > added, but I believe people are capable of applying common sense. But if > someone can plug this potential loophole in the text and still keep it > understandable, please feel free to rephrase it. > > But how many packages nowadays require a man page reader simply because they > install man pages? Well, since it's a guideline, it's worth discussion. Sure there's only 18 in your list, but that sounds more like a bug than a feature. Similarly, for docs in HTML format we could probably do with some kind of dependency suggestion (I'm not sure what the Fedora version of RPM recommended way of doing dependency level "suggestions" is now). I would think that would be the ideal, to recommend these things but not require them to be installed if it's just documentation files. I think the policy should be to somehow recommend the additional bits, then you can add "but not require" in place of the existing wording. Anyway, what is the current Fedora RPM way of doing suggestions? I've seen this stuff in SuSE, and other package managers (including RPM). Jon. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
