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=527241 Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #4 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-11-05 06:16:00 EDT --- > Oh, but I wonder if anyone ever complained that > gtkmm/glibmm/othermm-docs package depend on -devel one. One could complain all day long about many issues and not have any time left for other things. ;) Eventually packagers find out for themselves or simply change their mind (many even reformat .spec files from time to time just to meet personal preferences). [devhelp/gtk-doc] Without putting the .devhelp2 book definition anywhere, documentation placed below /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/ is found by devhelp already. And by any other tool that searches in that directory by default. Whether other Fedora packages move the documentation even if they store a .devhelp2 file doesn't matter much. More important is how you decide to do it and whether you agree with the solution. Those other packages ought to add a comment on why they relocate the docs. Else it's nothing else than dubious and shouldn't be copied to other rpms. Moving the docs breaks the related values in the pkgconfig file, for example: | $ cat libvtemm-1.2.pc|grep doc | docdir=${datarootdir}/doc/libvtemm-1.2 | doxytagfile=${docdir}/reference/libvtemm-1.2.tag | htmlrefdir=${docdir}/reference/html And $docdir not even points to the %doc files as they are stored in %_docdir/libvtemm-0.22.1 instead. -- 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