I have a policy question to bring up, regarding our requirements for documentation. Is the following OK?
Package: foobar Source: gnu Depends: %N-shlibs (= %v-%r) License: GPL InstallScript: << make install prefix=%i mkdir -p %i/share/doc/%n ln -s %p/share/doc/%N-shlibs %i/share/doc/%n << SplitOff: << Package: %N-shlibs Files: lib/*.%v.dylib lib/*.1.dylib DocFiles: COPYRIGHT << SplitOff2: << Package: %N-bin Depends: %N-shlibs Files: bin/ InstallScript: << mkdir -p %i/share/doc/%n ln -s %p/share/doc/%N-shlibs %i/share/doc/%n << << What I am doing is providing the documentation in only one of the splitoff pieces, in a case in which all of the splitoff pieces depend on that one piece. Then the required documentation directories for the other parts are just symbolic links. Argument in favor: since there are explicit dependencies, and since we are only building things once, users will be able to find the documentation we are relying on to justify the license. Argument against: a users might mess up a fink installation somehow, and only have one of the packages installed. Then the documentation might not be present. I would like some opinions about this. I am inclined to say it is OK. -- Dave _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel