Re: Re: New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



fedora-packaging-request@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Send Fedora-packaging mailing list submissions to
	fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
.
.
.

Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 16:53 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:

 - Clarify where documentation should go.  Currently my practice has
   been to put just the license file (if any) in the main package's %doc,
   and the license file plus all other documentation & examples in
   the devel subpackage.  This duplicates (only) the license file, but
   that seems acceptable since we shouldn't distribute software without
   its license.
-devel packages should Require the main package, thus, there really
isn't any need for the duplicate license copy.

The cppad package is totally C++ include files. There is a cppad-devel and cppad-doc subpackage, but there is no main package. So the rule above does not apply in this case.

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite Forum]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux