On Tue, 2001-11-27 at 06:44, Borsenkow Andrej wrote: > > > > It is rather a rpm question, but maybe people here have a clue: why is > doc > > for package foo installed in /usr/share/doc/foo-version rather than > just > > /usr/share/doc/foo ? You can't have two different version of foo > installed > > simultaneously > > You can if they do not conflict. Kernel is good example. It is true that > it is probably the only example :-) > > -andrej > Well, my explanation is easier if you look at gcc. Look at it from a techno/\logic point of view instead of a practical/\logic pov. gcc-*2.96*<-let's say you made 2.96 part of the package name instead of the version number (like abiword-*plugins* second place is still part of name). You could then have gcc-2.96 (name) and gcc-3.21 (name). /usr/share/doc/gcc-2.96 /usr/share/doc/gcc-3.21 where with 2.96 as version number, then you have %doc_prefix/%name-%version. These are mutually exclusive though. There can be no conflict with the two packs in latter situation (former is already explained) because you are already forced to have 3.21 named gcc3. The point? GR is correct. If you base your logic solely on rpm then foo alone is best. However, some programs are tied to their doc in other ways than the package and would require such a syntax exception (already visible in your mdk). Usually make takes care of this, but there are situations more practical ties related as opposed to the more common build logic related. My point? Those remain exceptions anyway, so stick with foo. That just needed to be made clear. With regard to kernel, that _is_ one heck of an exception now isn't it? :)
Hope that was as coherent as the thoughts in my head. Best regards -Blue
