Hi!
Subject says it all. Reason for this idea: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199108#c33
Quote:
I will prefer not to move docs from /usr/share/gutenprint/doc to /usr/share/doc/gutenprint.
Hmmm, we don't seem to have anything in the guidelines for this AFAICS. But IMHO all docs should be marked as %doc and thus should land in /usr/share/doc/<packagename-version-release> (the proper place used by all other packages)
Maybe we need to add such a rule :-/
Sure if you think like that. Primary looking at package said me that let that doc files be in /usr/share/gutenprint/doc Then i check under /usr/share on my system using find . -name doc * and i got following output ./sane/xsane/doc ./cups/doc ./apps/quanta/doc ./sgml/docbook/xsl-stylesheets-1.69.1-5/htmlhelp/doc ./scrollkeeper/doc ./vim/vim70/doc ./eclipse/plugins/org.python.pydev_0.9.3/PySrc/ThirdParty/logilab/common/doc ./eclipse/plugins/org.python.pydev_0.9.3/PySrc/ThirdParty/logilab/pylint/doc ./pear/doc ./gutenprint/doc where some of the entries belongs to Fedora Core packages.
So it looks to me that either we have different strategy for Fedora Extras or we have some Guidelines that will require a major changes when a package moves from Fedora Extras to Fedora Core. Then i would like to see that Guidelines page.
CU thl
This can conflict with the absolute rule that the package not depend on any of its documentation for proper operation. This happens with about boxes that read LICENSE, and programs with internal documentation browsers. Also, some files are treated as %doc without needing to be marked as such.
So it's not really simple.
- J<
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 09:57 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
This can conflict with the absolute rule that the package not depend on any of its documentation for proper operation. This happens with about boxes that read LICENSE, and programs with internal documentation browsers.
The packager would have to check the operation of the program to know which it falls under. If the documentation really is documentation rather than data for the program it should be marked %doc, though.
A further question, do docs have to be marked as: %doc example/
Or would this be acceptable: %doc %{_datadir}/[APP]/example
I lean towards the former as it makes for a central location to look for local documentation whereas the latter can leave documentation scattered all over the filesystem.
Also, some files are treated as %doc without needing to be marked as such.
I think this is by pathname, though. So /usr/share/doc/* /usr/man/* /usr/info/* would be automatically marked but /usr/share/[APP]/doc would not.
-Toshio
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 12:31 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 09:57 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
This can conflict with the absolute rule that the package not depend on any of its documentation for proper operation. This happens with about boxes that read LICENSE, and programs with internal documentation browsers.
The packager would have to check the operation of the program to know which it falls under. If the documentation really is documentation rather than data for the program it should be marked %doc, though.
A further question, do docs have to be marked as: %doc example/
Or would this be acceptable: %doc %{_datadir}/[APP]/example
I lean towards the former as it makes for a central location to look for local documentation whereas the latter can leave documentation scattered all over the filesystem.
This just crossed through my INBOX: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201828
The reporter is making a case for putting docs in %{_datadir} based on the behaviour of current packages (lyx). If we think we want any rules around documentation we should put a note in that bug.
-Toshio
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
This just crossed through my INBOX: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201828
The reporter is making a case for putting docs in %{_datadir} based on the behaviour of current packages (lyx). If we think we want any rules around documentation we should put a note in that bug.
Per my comment in bugzilla...
IMO, it's not (necessarily) wrong to install docs into a non-versioned dir under /usr/share/doc.
-- Rex
Am Dienstag, 8. August 2006 12:30 schrieb Thorsten Leemhuis:
Subject says it all.
Subject: Do we need a Rule "Docs should be packaged as %doc"?
We should package documentation with %doc to ensure that $ rpm -q --docfiles <packagename> works. It displays every documentation of a package and is thus very usefull to find documentation unless the documentation is not marked as such.
Regards, Till
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org