I'm a bit lost on the use of %doc for manpages.
I'm building a package of Heimdal Kerberos, so I'm following a lot of the MIT krb5 package as a pattern.
Should manpages be marked as %doc, or just other documentation?
Thanks,
Andrew Bartlett
On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 09:51 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
I'm a bit lost on the use of %doc for manpages.
I'm building a package of Heimdal Kerberos, so I'm following a lot of the MIT krb5 package as a pattern.
Should manpages be marked as %doc, or just other documentation?
Files under /usr/share/{man,info} are automagically marked %doc by rpmbuild.
On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 21:35 -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 09:51 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
I'm a bit lost on the use of %doc for manpages.
I'm building a package of Heimdal Kerberos, so I'm following a lot of the MIT krb5 package as a pattern.
Should manpages be marked as %doc, or just other documentation?
Files under /usr/share/{man,info} are automagically marked %doc by rpmbuild.
Following the pattern long-established history and from the MIT krb5 pacakge, I'm using a new directory (yes, I know I need to ask approval) of /usr/heimdal, so I think that means I need to manually mark them as % doc.
Thanks for the info,
Andrew Bartlett
Le vendredi 20 juin 2008 à 12:28 +1000, Andrew Bartlett a écrit :
On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 21:35 -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 09:51 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
I'm a bit lost on the use of %doc for manpages.
I'm building a package of Heimdal Kerberos, so I'm following a lot of the MIT krb5 package as a pattern.
Should manpages be marked as %doc, or just other documentation?
Files under /usr/share/{man,info} are automagically marked %doc by rpmbuild.
Following the pattern long-established history and from the MIT krb5 pacakge, I'm using a new directory (yes, I know I need to ask approval) of /usr/heimdal, so I think that means I need to manually mark them as % doc.
Please follow the FHS rules and do not create new roots where the FHS says you should not. I certainly hope the krb packages get fixed someday but in the meanwhile that's no reason to repeat their mistakes
On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 08:18 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le vendredi 20 juin 2008 à 12:28 +1000, Andrew Bartlett a écrit :
On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 21:35 -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 09:51 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
I'm a bit lost on the use of %doc for manpages.
I'm building a package of Heimdal Kerberos, so I'm following a lot of the MIT krb5 package as a pattern.
Should manpages be marked as %doc, or just other documentation?
Files under /usr/share/{man,info} are automagically marked %doc by rpmbuild.
Following the pattern long-established history and from the MIT krb5 pacakge, I'm using a new directory (yes, I know I need to ask approval) of /usr/heimdal, so I think that means I need to manually mark them as % doc.
Please follow the FHS rules and do not create new roots where the FHS says you should not. I certainly hope the krb packages get fixed someday but in the meanwhile that's no reason to repeat their mistakes
No worries, I'll move them. (The MIT krb5 package's use of a non-FHS prefix allows me to avoid conflicts ;-)
Andrew Bartlett
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Andrew Bartlett -
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams -
Nicolas Mailhot