At 18:29 Uhr -0500 02.02.2002, David R. Morrison wrote: >Max Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] > > >The WHOOPS above is this: the value of %n is foo, not foo-shlibs. So I >> >think that we are creating %i/share/doc/%n not %i/share/doc/%n-shlibs. >> >Either that, or we have to duplicate the documentation between the >> >two packages, which seems silly. >> >> I am not sure if this is silly. Sure, duplicating a full manual is >> silly, but when it comes to license/readme files, I think that would >> be could. >> >> So my suggestion would be to simply install all files from DocFiles >> into both packages. This way we don't have to worry about %n either >> etc. Seems pretty elegant to me in fact :) >> > >This doesn't quite work. There are lots of reasons that you sometimes have >to create %i/share/doc/%n by hand, and put things there. But it's very rare that this is the case of the LICENSE file, or is it not? > Or would we make >that semi-illegal for these packages? That is, for these packages the >LICENSE/COPYING would *have* to go in via DocFiles, and if you had a manual >or something you would be advised to put it in manually so that it wouldn't >go in twice? Maybe it is not such a good idea after all to abuse the DocFiles field. We could just for now add a "ShlibDocFiles" field, of course. This is not very nice, with all those addiitonal "Shlib*" fields, but short of a new format (which will come eventually), I can't think of something better. > -- Dave > >P.S. I agree with your naming, and am creating libpng and libpng-shlibs now >(when I'm not typing a message to you!). :) >P.P.S. Eventually you will need to go to bed and I will need to go to >dinner... :-) Pfft, I should have gone to bed a couple of hours ago :) Max -- ----------------------------------------------- Max Horn Software Developer email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> phone: (+49) 6151-494890 _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
