Michael Schwendt wrote: > The scenario: > > - tarball "make install" installs lots of documentation files in > %_defaultdocdir/%name-%version/ > > - package %files list uses %doc attributes to place its own > selection of files in our default docdir > > => all doc files from "make install" are lost, because > %doc fills %_defaultdocdir/%name-%version/ from scratch > > > In all earlier cases where applicable, I could convince the packager > to not use %doc and instead create proper %files entries to include > the files found in %_defaultdocdir/%name-%version/ -- as a bonus, > rpmbuild would fail for any file not included in %files. > > For the first time, a packager insists on overwriting/killing the > installed files with his own conflicting %doc attributes. > > > Conclusion: It works but bears risks. It would silently kill any > additional documentation files built and installed by an upgrade, but not > added by the packager manually via %doc. This has risk but isn't dangerous to the program's operation. It increases the complexity inside of the spec file but may help when additional documentation is added. It changes how the packager controls what's included in the documentation. It has documentation from one subpackage being added to the doc directory of the main package... I think your method has merit but I don't think I want to mandate that it must be used instead of the other way. > It could also be that the %doc > statements create different subdirs (e.g. ./html/ versus placing the > html files directory in the pkg's docdir root) which might conflict > with paths compiled into an application. > We already say that things can't be marked %doc if the program relies on them since --nodoc can exclude those files. Maybe we need to clarify that to mention that things in the docdir are automatically marked %doc? -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
