Re: Test of Docs Packaging

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Uttered "Paul W. Frields" <stickster@xxxxxxxxx>, spake thus:

> Right.  If you update your docs-common module again, you'll get the new
> stuff to package fedora-doc-common.

Paul,

Two issues have slowly emerged from the recesses of my mind (which is
always in recess, if you get my drift). Forgive me if they have
already been discussed:

1.  This all looks quite compilated to leave in Makefile.<whatever>.
    Do you think that packaging this as a shell script would be
    cleaner and easier to maintain?  Just use the same
    Makefile.common technology I used for the i18n conversion to
    generate the per-language targets and pickle off the shell script
    from there.

2.  The "noarch" RPM's actually contain the source; that's more a
   "src.rpm" or "-devel.noarch.rpm" to me.  Don't we need room in the
   namespace for a PDF / HTML flavor of the RPM?  Perhaps
   "foo-html.noarch.rpm"?

Late to the party, but Cheers

Attachment: pgpXaN2szTFnt.pgp
Description: PGP signature

-- 

fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: 
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Red Hat 9]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux