[Fedora-packaging] Should INSTALL file presented in RPM?

[Michael Schwendt]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 13:37:44 -0400, John Dennis wrote:

> On 09/27/2013 01:08 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I plan to file tickets(bugs) to notify packagers of including INSTALL
> > files in RPMs. I think we don't have the needs to ship these files for
> > install instructions.
> > 
> > Any ideas? If all you agree I will start doing it now.
> 
> NAK, bad idea
> 
> Many INSTALL files contain valuable information potentially beyond just
> how to build and install the project.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation
|
| [...] Irrelevant documentation include build instructions, the
| omnipresent INSTALL file containing generic build instructions,
| for example, [...]

;-)

> At times it can also be very
> helpful to understand how the RPM packaging may have deviated from the
> generic instructions or may have applied specific configuration to the
> generic installation instructions.

For that it may need the src.rpm contents, in particular the spec file
and likely the options list of a configure script.

> If the packager felt it was valuable to include the INSTALL file then I
> see no point in mindlessly overriding their discretion and experience.

One cannot tell whether it was included deliberately. During review, it
occurs often that packagers add the file together with other %doc files
in the top source dir without thinking about its contents.

But the response on mass-filed bugs just for this would not be great.
Only few packagers would build and update for Rawhide immediately. In many
more cases, it would take months before a packager would respond. Worse,
if you consider provenpackagers to apply the changes, there's the risk
an INSTALL file will be readded with a future upgrade, because a packager
disagrees or adds other new doc files as well.