[Fedora-packaging] Unclear in the use of %doc

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le vendredi 20 juin 2008 à 12:28 +1000, Andrew Bartlett a écrit :
> On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 21:35 -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 09:51 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > I'm a bit lost on the use of %doc for manpages.
> > > 
> > > I'm building a package of Heimdal Kerberos, so I'm following a lot of
> > > the MIT krb5 package as a pattern. 
> > > 
> > > Should manpages be marked as %doc, or just other documentation?
> > 
> > Files under /usr/share/{man,info} are automagically marked %doc by
> > rpmbuild.
> 
> Following the pattern long-established history and from the MIT krb5
> pacakge, I'm using a new directory (yes, I know I need to ask approval)
> of /usr/heimdal, so I think that means I need to manually mark them as %
> doc.  

Please follow the FHS rules and do not create new roots where the FHS
says you should not. I certainly hope the krb packages get fixed someday
but in the meanwhile that's no reason to repeat their mistakes

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message
	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20080620/3e11dd86/attachment.bin