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=583058 --- Comment #6 from Chen Lei <supercyper1@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-05-13 06:22:55 EDT --- %{_docdir}/HTML/en/grantlee-apidocs still seems a bit strange, maybe %{_docdir}/HTML/grantlee-apidocs/en is more appropriate if we consider the fedora-release-notes package. ls /usr/share/doc/HTML/fedora-release-notes/ cs-CZ es-ES index.html nl-NL pt-PT uk-UA en-US fr-FR it-IT pl-PL sv-SE zh-CN The installation path and subpackage name for html documentation is really a mess in fedora and need further consideration. The guideline only has one line about this - if there's a lot of documentation, consider putting it into a subpackage. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Documentation Actually, we now have several subpackage name for html documention. E.g -doc -docs -devel-doc -devel-docs -apidocs -manual We also have several installation path for those html files(normally built by docbook or doxygen). %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} %{_docdir}/%{name}-[subpackagename]-%{version} %{_docdir}/%{name} %{_docdir}/HTML/%{name} %{_docdir}/HTML/[locale]/%{name} %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/%{name} In java package guideline,we have %{_datadir}/javadoc/%{name}-%{version} for -javadoc subpackage %{_docdir}/%{name}-[subpackagename]-%{version} for -manual subpackage I think add a fixed installation path for html apidocs or enduser manuals like man or info will benefit all of us a lot . -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review