Matthias Saou wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote :
If %{_datadir}/<something>/COPYING is used by a package, it's data, not
documentation. %doc'ing it would be a fault.
Why? I don't understand why you claim (and not even just suggest) that.
%_defaultdocdir even defaults to a sub-directory of %_datadir in our
current setup.
I don't see why a program's data under %_datadir couldn't contain its
own online documentation, accessible from the program itself. And I
really think this should be considered perfectly fine, as long as all
of the relevant files are tagged as %doc in order to be easily
identifiable when querying the package.
This is even probably the reason why the %doc tag exists, since
otherwise, why would you need to query a package for its documentation
if it was mandatory for all of it to be
under /usr/share/doc/name-version-rel?
Documentation placed under %_datadir is both data *and* documentation.
It's data from the point of view that the program uses it at runtime. As
a result of this, that data should *not* be marked %doc because it would
then be excluded from installation if the package was installed using
"--excludedocs", and that would break the packaging rule:
If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the
program must run properly if it is not present.
In the case under discussion, this would be broken if the license file
under %_datadir was not installed, because the GTK GUI wants to be able
to display it.
Paul.
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
