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

Andrew Bartlett abartlet at samba.org
Fri Jun 20 07:04:57 UTC 2008


On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 08:18 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> 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

No worries, I'll move them.  (The MIT krb5 package's use of a non-FHS
prefix allows me to avoid conflicts ;-)

Andrew Bartlett
-- 
Andrew Bartlett
http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.
-------------- 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/20080620/be301a85/attachment.bin 


More information about the packaging mailing list