[Bug 988667] Review Request: valadoc - Documentation tool for the vala project

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988667



--- Comment #22 from Raphael Groner <projects.rg at smart.ms> ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #21)
…
> Version appears to be 0.30, not 0.30.0 (so the tarball URL works).

That's what is meant with vala api version. It changes in conjunction with vala
major version bumps, so valadoc can be expected to need rebuilds with every
vala update.

…
> > I have fixed that. I also added a / between %{buildroot} and %{_libdir} for
> > the sake of readability, but I’m not sure if it should be there

It's not needed to insert backticks when %{buildroot} is in front cause
%{_libdir} gets replaced with '/usr/lib' or '/usr/lib64'.

> It's not necessary, and it will cause a double slash in the paths shown in
> build logs, but some people like to add it. Either way is fine.

…
> (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #20)
> > . Please use %{_mandir} .
> > %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1.gz
> Or even %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1.*
> in case the compression ever changes.

Even better: %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1*

Sorry, I overlooked that.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Manpages

> > . Generally, you can use %{name} everywhere in the spec file, where
> > 'valadoc' is set instead.
> Please don't :)
> People do that, but there's no requirement (or suggestion) in the guidelines
> to do that, and it makes everything *much* harder to read. Using macros make
> sense for things which vary between builds or change over time. The name of
> the package is something that almost never changes.

That's fine. It was meant as a recommended personal preference only. It's up to
the requester how to handle.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component