Packaging guidelines for documentation clairfication needed

[Richard Shaw]

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de>
wrote:

> Older versions of rpm allowed mixing relative %doc and direct installs
> into %_pkgdocdir.
>
> rpm - as upstream calls it - "fixed it" (IMHO, they broke rpm - of course
> upstreams disagrees with me).
>

> As a consequence of this, rpm now often errors out, when mixing  both
> styles. The only reliable way, now seems to be to either manually install
> everything to %_pkgdocdir directly or only use relative %doc.
>

rpm or rpmbuild? I assume the latter, and I've never had a problem with any
of my packages. Is it known what exactly triggers the issue?


ATM, I am recommending against using relative %doc and recommend to
> directly install docs into %_pkgdocdir.


Easy enough on the %install side but silly in the %files section, how I'll
have to specifically list each file or glob the whole directory and then
turn around and exclude %{_pkgdocdir}/html so save that for the -doc
package.

The other option being to move the documentation back to %buildroot and use
relative paths...

Overall it seems like a step backwards to me...

Thanks,
Richard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20150915/61afe1c8/attachment.html>