On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 11:21 +0800, Chen Lei wrote: > 2010/8/6 seth vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 21:13 -0400, Braden McDaniel wrote: > >> > These packages also tend to have loads > >> > of small files (root-doc has over 20,000), all of which end up in > >> > filelists.xml, which then get processed by yum when it needs complete > >> > filelists. > >> > >> To the extent that this sort of thing is a real *general* problem, it > >> needs to be solved on the yum side. > > > > Agreed. It may become a target feature for f15- but it will involve > > changing the format of the repodata and that will be invasive. > > > > > > -sv > > At least, we should not ship apidocs for normally desktop program(e.g. > gedit) Er, *at all*? Why not? > and not ship duplicate format docs(e.g. shipping html pdf doc > in the same package), personally I like html docs better than doc/pdf. > > I suggest to disscuss extreme big auto-generated apidocs(size > 100M) > rpm case by case, it'll be better to determine whether shipping it or > not by FESCo. I think only popular libraries are worth to ship a big > -doc subpackage, other library packages should not enable generate big > doc subpackage by default, I can see a case for a policy that different documentation formats should be in different packages (e.g., -doc-html, -doc-pdf, etc.); but why insist that only one be provided? > user who really need those docs can > generate -doc subpackage by running 'rpmbuild -bb with...'. Yes; or they could forget the whole thing and go to the upstream package. A distribution's packaging is supposed to make this part easier. -- Braden McDaniel <braden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
