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=591947 --- Comment #7 from Chen Lei <supercyper1@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-05-15 04:51:34 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > Hi Alexander, > > > > I found that many -javadoc packages don't create a symbolic link from > > %{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} to %{_javadocdir}/%{name}. Java package > > guideline also don't mention that, are they all need fixing? > Having unversioned javadoc directory is good to have for some commonly used > packages like apache-commons-io (a number of developers should be using this > javadocs). But there is no point having things like that for packages like the > maven-jar-plugin. Virtually noone except a few maven developers will be reading > that so we are not causing any inconvenience. > For me this should be up to the packager. Thanks for clarification, so now we have three places for -javadoc subpackage? 1. %files javadoc %defattr(-,root,root,-) %{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} %{_javadocdir}/%{name} 2. %files javadoc %defattr(-,root,root,-) %{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} e.g. ant 3. %files javadoc %defattr(-,root,root,-) %{_javadocdir}/%{name} e.g.jgrapht and Specfile Template in guideline http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java Will it be better to simply install all javadoc to %{_javadocdir}/%{name} as the java packaging guideline? There's also a talk in KDE-SIG meeting about which place is better for html documentions recently. See http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-05-11/kde-sig.2010-05-11-14.02.log.html -- 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