On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 12:31 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 09:57 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > This can conflict with the absolute rule that the package not depend
> > on any of its documentation for proper operation. This happens with
> > about boxes that read LICENSE, and programs with internal
> > documentation browsers.
>
> The packager would have to check the operation of the program to know
> which it falls under. If the documentation really is documentation
> rather than data for the program it should be marked %doc, though.
>
> A further question, do docs have to be marked as:
> %doc example/
>
> Or would this be acceptable:
> %doc %{_datadir}/[APP]/example
>
> I lean towards the former as it makes for a central location to look for
> local documentation whereas the latter can leave documentation scattered
> all over the filesystem.
This just crossed through my INBOX:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201828
The reporter is making a case for putting docs in %{_datadir} based on
the behaviour of current packages (lyx). If we think we want any rules
around documentation we should put a note in that bug.
-Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
