On Tue, May 10, 2005, Matthias Kurz wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2005, Matthias Kurz wrote: >> On Mon, May 09, 2005, Michael Schloh wrote: >[...] >>> same reason. Marking files with %docdir is going to be a one shot operation >>> across all packages that include documentation. >>> > Does this mean that the %docdir specifications accumulate and that there > could be an overflow ? There are no %docdir tags in any spec files to avoid several ad hoc document packaging strategies that could be difficult to unify in the future.
> Generally i also recommended a "global" option %with_docs. It's ugly to
> have to specify this with every package. I think there are only two valid
> strategies. Install every (additional) doc or install no (additional) doc.
> Installing docs "on demand" will always fail. When you need it, it will
> not be there. YMMV
>
Can you please clarify your suggestion, and how a new OpenPKG feature
'%with_docs' would be used in a spef file?
So far, we have a few things which I hope is clear to everyone. Please make
corrections if any of the following is wrong:
--includedocs (RPM feature): includes files tagged with '%doc'
--excludedocs (RPM feature): excludes files tagged with '%doc' (the default)
%doc (RPM feature): describes a file as optional documentation
%docdir (RPM feature): describes a directory as containing documentation
with_doc (OpenPKG feature): inconsistent option which should be removed
$ openpkg rpm -qd <pkg> (qd is RPM feature): list documentation
We might consider the questions:
1. How do we want to consistently use the tags '%doc' and '%docdir'?
2. Do we package absolutely all vendor docs even when they overlap?
- When a user's guide is available in all .html, .ps, and .pdf,
then which do we prefer to package?
3. Where do the docs go?
- %{l_prefix}/share/<package>/<here>?
- %{l_prefix}/share/<package>/doc/<here>?
...and of course the organisational questions:
Where do we document and enforce this new standard?
- Documented in the long outdated handbook?
- Documented in a new 'package standards' document?
- Not documented anywhere, and only enforced?
- Enforced in the speclint script of openpkg-tools?
> I thought, OpenPKG handles additional doc with the --excludedocs or
> --includedocs options to rpm, respectively with the setting of %excludedocs.
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.package-management.openpkg.devel/4874
>
Yes that's true, although it's left to consider if this is a truly
consistent feature across all or even most packages (potentially)
containing documentation. In any case, the redundant 'with_doc'
option found in only a few packages should be removed and replaced
with either '%doc', '%docdir', or both.
--
Michael Schloh von Bennewitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Development Team, Operations Northern Europe
Cable & Wireless Telecommunications Services
Tel +49-89-92699-227, Fax +49-89-92699-808
pgp7U91SuBKFm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
