Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml

[Brad Bell]

fedora-packaging-request(a)redhat.com wrote:
>  Send Fedora-packaging mailing list submissions to
>  	fedora-packaging(a)redhat.com
>     
.
.
.
>  Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>    
> > On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 16:53 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >
> >     
> >>  - Clarify where documentation should go.  Currently my practice has
> >>    been to put just the license file (if any) in the main package's %doc,
> >>    and the license file plus all other documentation & examples in
> >>    the devel subpackage.  This duplicates (only) the license file, but
> >>    that seems acceptable since we shouldn't distribute software without
> >>    its license.
> >>       
> > -devel packages should Require the main package, thus, there really
> > isn't any need for the duplicate license copy.
> >
> >      
The cppad package is totally C++ include files. There is a cppad-devel 
and cppad-doc subpackage, but there is no main package. So the rule 
above does not apply in this case.

New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml

[Tom Callaway]

On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 05:13 -0800, Brad Bell wrote:

>  The cppad package is totally C++ include files. There is a
> cppad-devel 
>  and cppad-doc subpackage, but there is no main package. So the rule 
>  above does not apply in this case. 
Yep. Exceptions abound. :)

~spot