[Fedora-packaging] Do we need a Rule "Docs should be packaged as %doc"?

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 12:31 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 09:57 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > This can conflict with the absolute rule that the package not depend
> > on any of its documentation for proper operation.  This happens with
> > about boxes that read LICENSE, and programs with internal
> > documentation browsers.  
> 
> The packager would have to check the operation of the program to know
> which it falls under.  If the documentation really is documentation
> rather than data for the program it should be marked %doc, though.
> 
> A further question, do docs have to be marked as:
>   %doc example/
> 
> Or would this be acceptable:
>   %doc %{_datadir}/[APP]/example
> 
> I lean towards the former as it makes for a central location to look for
> local documentation whereas the latter can leave documentation scattered
> all over the filesystem.

This just crossed through my INBOX:
  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201828

The reporter is making a case for putting docs in %{_datadir} based on
the behaviour of current packages (lyx).  If we think we want any rules
around documentation we should put a note in that bug.

-Toshio
-------------- 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/packaging/attachments/20060808/ef6b3577/attachment.bin