Kevin Fenzi venit, vidit, dixit 07.08.2013 18:39:
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 17:53:22 +0200
> Till Maas <opensource@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:25:19AM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
>>
>>> The special (pathless) %doc macro now installs docs to unversioned
>>> /usr/share/doc/%{name} dir in Rawhide. Packages that don't refer to
>>> their doc dir by any other means do not need any changes, just a
>>> rebuild.
>>>
>>> Packages that do refer to their doc dir by some other means will
>>> need changes. It depends on the package if not addressing this will
>>> result in a build failure or docs still being installed into "wrong"
>>> (versioned) dirs. Either way the suggested way to handle this is by
>>> using the %{_pkgdocdir} macro which is now in Rawhide, in
>>> redhat-rpm-config >= 9.1.0-50.fc20. I'm guessing that this macro
>>> might be backported to earlier Fedora releases (where it'll expand
>>> to a dir appropriate for those releases) too at some point, but it
>>> is unclear when, and also unclear if it will make it into EPEL.
>>> Luckily handling
>>
>> Why is it so hard to just backport this change? And if it needs to be
>> decided why does FESCO not just do it? Or who needs to decide it?
>
> Well, The redhat-rpm-config maintainer is on vacation right now.
>
> I guess I could push an update to earlier releases, do you have a
> tested patch? ;)
>
> kevin
Now I'm even more confused by:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UnversionedDocdirs
Building an F20 (master) package on F18 does not work, then, even with
the proposed conditional %{_pkgdocdir}. Wouldn't a conditional based on
the Fedora version be a much more robust suggestion to deal with this?
Michael
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
