Re: [Cooker] why does doc install in /usr/share/doc/name-version
Ainsi parlait Leon Brooks : On Tuesday 27 November 2001 19:24, Guillaume Rousse wrote: You can't have two different version of foo installed simultaneously (unless they bear different names), Why not? It works for me. (-: I have machines with two versions of (g)libc installed at once, two kernels, etc. No worries. You didn't installed two glibc package, did you ? One least one should have been installed manually., and according to FHS, it should go in /usr/local/lib, and its doc in /usr/local/doc. and it makes you unable to know where doc is installed just from package name... cd /usr/share/doc/packagename-* ...in a script, or... I want to have a package foo requiring bar for building be able to know exactly where bar doc is (for cross-linking doc, actually). Yes, i could use this kind of trick, as i know i will always have one only matching dir, but this is ugly :-( -- Guillaume Rousse [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG key http://lis.snv.jussieu.fr/~rousse/gpgkey.html
RE: [Cooker] why does doc install in /usr/share/doc/name-version
It is rather a rpm question, but maybe people here have a clue: why is doc for package foo installed in /usr/share/doc/foo-version rather than just /usr/share/doc/foo ? You can't have two different version of foo installed simultaneously You can if they do not conflict. Kernel is good example. It is true that it is probably the only example :-) -andrej
RE: [Cooker] why does doc install in /usr/share/doc/name-version
On Tue, 2001-11-27 at 06:44, Borsenkow Andrej wrote: It is rather a rpm question, but maybe people here have a clue: why is doc for package foo installed in /usr/share/doc/foo-version rather than just /usr/share/doc/foo ? You can't have two different version of foo installed simultaneously You can if they do not conflict. Kernel is good example. It is true that it is probably the only example :-) -andrej Well, my explanation is easier if you look at gcc. Look at it from a techno/\logic point of view instead of a practical/\logic pov. gcc-*2.96*-let's say you made 2.96 part of the package name instead of the version number (like abiword-*plugins* second place is still part of name). You could then have gcc-2.96 (name) and gcc-3.21 (name). /usr/share/doc/gcc-2.96 /usr/share/doc/gcc-3.21 where with 2.96 as version number, then you have %doc_prefix/%name-%version. These are mutually exclusive though. There can be no conflict with the two packs in latter situation (former is already explained) because you are already forced to have 3.21 named gcc3. The point? GR is correct. If you base your logic solely on rpm then foo alone is best. However, some programs are tied to their doc in other ways than the package and would require such a syntax exception (already visible in your mdk). Usually make takes care of this, but there are situations more practical ties related as opposed to the more common build logic related. My point? Those remain exceptions anyway, so stick with foo. That just needed to be made clear. With regard to kernel, that _is_ one heck of an exception now isn't it? :) Hope that was as coherent as the thoughts in my head. Best regards -Blue
Re: [Cooker] why does doc install in /usr/share/doc/name-version
On Tuesday 27 November 2001 19:24, Guillaume Rousse wrote: You can't have two different version of foo installed simultaneously (unless they bear different names), Why not? It works for me. (-: I have machines with two versions of (g)libc installed at once, two kernels, etc. No worries. and it makes you unable to know where doc is installed just from package name... cd /usr/share/doc/packagename-* ...in a script, or... cd /usr/share/doc/packagename-Tab ...if by hand. (-: Cheers; Leon
