The end user also has to download and install the new docs package everytime
the main bacula package is updated when the -docs package is just
a subpackage (instead of a separate package).

I agree that having a separate package makes a lot of sense here.

-Toshio

That's the main reason for splitting.
The only problem is that the document build system parses a header file in the Bacula source code to get the versions to put in the front page of the manuals.

It is acceptable to do the following during the %prep section?

%prep
%setup -q

# To get the needed info for the fake header launch the following command in the bacula source folder:
# cat src/version.h | grep ^#define

mkdir src
cat > src/version.h << EOF
#define VERSION "5.2.3"
#define BDATE "16 December 2011"
#define LSMDATE "16Dec11"
#define PROG_COPYRIGHT "Copyright (C) %d-2011 Free Software Foundation Europe e.V.\n"
#define BYEAR "2011" /* year for copyright messages in progs */
EOF

%build
%configure --with-bacula=%{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}
make %{?_smp_mflags}

Those five lines from the src/version.h file are the only thing needed from the Bacula sources.
By creating that file the sources compile fine. Is that ok?

Thanks,
--Simone

--
You cannot discover new oceans unless you have the courage to lose sight of the shore (R. W. Emerson).