Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521909 --- Comment #30 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <pahan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-04 15:43:43 EDT --- (In reply to comment #29) > > I did not know. Please, can you point where it is described more precisely. > It's "common sense" - c.f. the "MANUAL SECTIONS" in man man. Its nothing say about packaging... In any case, man pages even shouldn't be marked as %doc as I known... Or not? > In general, separate *-doc (sub-)packages only make real sense in very few > occasions, e.g. > 1) when docs are optional supplements (e.g. a pdf's formated docs, which are > already available in some other formats) > 2) when docs are "big" and can be shared as "noarch"-subpackages between > architectures. > 3) when upstream ships docs as separate package > ... Guidelines mention only case 2. 3 - I think is clear, it is not our case now. Global, you are speak about cases when we should make separate -doc sub-package, but I think it is not forbidden in other cases too. I repeat, decision make separate -doc was done, so, nowadays question another: in described 1 and 2 (in 3 content is known from upstream) should be all documentation go into sub-package, or we free separate it as we want?? And one more - would (can) -doc sub-package have any dependency (in concrete situation to build examples)? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review