Braden McDaniel <braden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 6/18/09 5:03 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: >> That's why the statement starts with "If possible..." > ... > The point is that, in light of this, the guideline should be that these > files should *not* be regenerated unless doing so affords some tangible > improvement. I don't think the guidelines should tell people what to do one way or the other. There might be package-specific reasons why regenerating docs is or is not a good thing (eg, this upstream does indeed have a history of forgetting to update derived doc files). I think leaving it to maintainer's discretion is exactly what we should be doing. More generally, Fedora packagers should be assumed to be competent to make this type of decision. It's not the goal of the guidelines to tell them what to do in exact detail. Proposal #1 (which just clarified what is considered an executable and thus subject to the already-agreed policy) seemed fine to me. regards, tom lane -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
