On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 21:38:49 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:58:47PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 12:08:08 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > > > I've read this several times, and > > > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UnversionedDocdirs > > > > > > and I still don't understand what this message means. > > > > My message or a specific bugzilla ticket? > > Your message. Let's take this bug at random, linked from the > tracker bug (993551): > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=993805 That's not a ticket opened by me. It's about something else, albeit also related to the unversioned docdirs change. > If I'm understanding this correctly, the problem is that the GRASS > spec file will create /usr/share/doc/grass-%{version}/... files > because of: > > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/grass.git/tree/grass.spec#n210 Correct. > That's definitely an (un)versioned docdirs problem, no doubt. > > GRASS uses doxygen. But it is not noarch, so presumably this package > is not affected? Affected by what? This particular ticket has been opened by Ville because for F20 the package does _not_ install into an unversioned %doc dir (since it explicitly installs into a versioned one). > If it's not affected, could you please link to the specific bug of a > package which is affected. Affected by what? For duplicated %doc file trees there are the tickets with the same subject as this thread. They may or may not cause conflicts depending on which builder has been used and depending on whether a tool like doxygen is configured correctly at build-time. The next build may lead to a conflict. Hence "potentially conflicting", not "certainly conflicting". > > > How would this cause subpackage conflicts? > > > > Have you heard about Doxygen generated documentation causing conflicts? > > Here the problem is expanded into a conflict between the base package > > and the second package that also includes the documentation. > > > > > What has arch/noarch got to do with anything? > > > > A noarch subpackage may be built on any build arch different than the > > builder that creates the base package. This triggers bugs (such as the > > Doxygen timestamp/footer bug), because the noarch build's doc files may > > differ from the arch build's doc files. > > Won't the subpackage put docs in /usr/share/doc/pkg-subpkg/ ? Ah, now it's getting interesting! The tickets I've opened link the FPC ticket #338 that gives the background. The answer to your question _would be_ "yes" for the normal case that the packager used only %doc to include local files in any subpackages. But packagers don't do that. They mix %doc and /usr/share/doc/%{name}/* entries in the %files lists. _That_ causes the base package to include _everything_ in that dir even if it only uses %doc to include specific local files. -> It's a side-effect of the %doc macro. > > If no noarch subpkg is involved, it [hopefully] boils down to just > > duplicated files. > > > > > Can you point to an example of a packaging problem? > > > > Duplicate files are a packaging problem already. Duplicating the entire > > contents of a huge -doc subpackage in the base package is a problem. > > So I think what you're saying is that all subpackage docs are (or > should be?) placed in /usr/share/doc/pkg/ ignoring the subpackage > name? No. > That is *not* my understanding of how unversioned docdirs works. You've misunderstood something. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
