[Fedora-packaging] New autogenerated documentation guideline proposal

[Braden McDaniel]

On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 11:21 +0800, Chen Lei wrote: 
> 2010/8/6 seth vidal <skvidal at fedoraproject.org>:
> > On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 21:13 -0400, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> >> >   These packages also tend to have loads
> >> > of small files (root-doc has over 20,000), all of which end up in
> >> > filelists.xml, which then get processed by yum when it needs complete
> >> > filelists.
> >>
> >> To the extent that this sort of thing is a real *general* problem, it
> >> needs to be solved on the yum side.
> >
> > Agreed. It may become a target feature for f15- but it will involve
> > changing the format of the repodata and that will be invasive.
> >
> >
> > -sv
> 
> At least, we should not ship apidocs for normally desktop program(e.g.
> gedit)

Er, *at all*?  Why not?

> and not ship duplicate format docs(e.g. shipping html pdf doc
> in the same package), personally I like html docs better than doc/pdf.
> 
> I suggest to disscuss extreme big auto-generated apidocs(size > 100M)
> rpm case by case, it'll be better to determine whether shipping it or
> not by FESCo. I think only popular libraries are worth to ship a big
> -doc subpackage, other library packages should not enable generate big
> doc subpackage by default,

I can see a case for a policy that different documentation formats
should be in different packages (e.g., -doc-html, -doc-pdf, etc.); but
why insist that only one be provided?

> user who really need those docs can
> generate -doc subpackage by running 'rpmbuild -bb with...'.

Yes; or they could forget the whole thing and go to the upstream
package.  A distribution's packaging is supposed to make this part
easier.

-- 
Braden McDaniel <braden at endoframe.com>