Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 08:12:32AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:I also favor this reasoning but I know that we presently have other examples of documentation following a different upstream convention (For instance, ruby gems). In addition, this case may be more like man, info, or ghelp than like ruby gems.location.One thing I'd like to ask about from the original post:: In tex/latex bundled in fedora (I guess it comes from tetex and it is now in texlive) there is a simple system to view documentation.What is this "simple system"? We do have a rule that nothing marked as %doc should break an application if it is not present on the system. If this help system is integrated into applications (like ghelp for gnome) then this would count under that rule. If it's more like man and info pages then we'd want them to be marked as doc even if they are located somewhere other than %{_docdir}.It is more like info pages (and see the other response for more in-depth explanations...), and should be marked as %doc. And they are rightly marked as %doc in packages that installs them here (texlive, for example).
Sounds good. FWIW, I think %{_datadir}/texmf/doc is fine.
-Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
