Test of Docs Packaging

[Paul W. Frields]

On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 16:48 -0500, Tommy Reynolds wrote:
> Uttered "Paul W. Frields" <stickster at gmail.com>, spake thus:
> 
> > This may point to the need for our Makefile.common to provide a use case
> > for a locally installed fedora-doc-common RPM.  IOW, pointing to (if
> > it's available, or possibly if nothing else is available, or... some
> > combination thereof?) /usr/share/fedora/doc/docs-common/* for supporting
> > stuff with which to build docs "standalone" without CVS.  Does that make
> > sense?
> 
> Not to me as a doc developer.  See, I've got to have CVS for my
> document anyway, so I just may as well keep the ../docs-common stuff
> checked out.  Why be "slightly pregnant"?
> 
> I keep envisioning only two use cases:
> 
> 1) Developer -- eveything local from a CVS checkout, even if I don't
> have CVS write permission.
> 
> 2) End user, aka read-only -- install the RPM's and yelp away.
> 
> What am I missing?

I'm thinking of the fact that there's no other piece of stuff in Fedora
that can't be built or rebuilt entirely from a .src.rpm and assorted
BuildRequires.  If someone "in the know" @RH says "Shut up, nobody
cares," that's good enough for me. :-)

-- 
Paul W. Frields, RHCE                          http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
 Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/docs/attachments/20051020/18e76cc2/attachment.bin