I think the source of confusion is that some packages don't install any gtk docs if you build them with --disable-gtk-doc while others install pre-generated files.
We _do_ want to include the gtk docs in the packages whenever available so rm -rf'ing them isn't the best solution for the packaging issue. It's better to add them to the devel package unconditionally in this case (%files devel). The only reason we have the --without-gtk-doc option is because it takes hours to regenerate them for some packages (SUNWgnome-base-libs), so it's a big time waster when you're working on a bug fix. Laca On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 22:36 +0100, Patrick Ale wrote: > On Jan 28, 2008 10:22 PM, Brian Cameron <Brian.Cameron at sun.com> wrote: > > Patrick: > > > > > You're right (duh). The catch was that the build failed when I was > > > building --without gtk-doc. I tried my patch, rebuild, but without > > > --without gtk-doc. So it was "fixed". > > > Real problem is a missing if-block in the %install area where the > > > gtk-doc directory isnt removed when compiling with --without gtk-doc. > > > > > Again, I'm confused by this patch. It doesn't look like any other > > spec-files use this sort of technique. We should keep all our spec > > files (that build gtk-docs) consistent. Not change one to do > > something special like this. If this is really needed, we should > > add it to all the spec-files that build gtk-docs. > > > > Without the patch I made you will get an error that there are > unpackaged files when you build --without gtk-doc. > These two spec files I wrote a patch for are the only packages that > had these problems (I did a pkgtool build --without gtk-doc *.spec) > > It's not so much that the build fails or that the packages don't get > created. They just don't get installed automaticly because in the > BUILD area there are files in /usr/share/gtk-doc that don't get > packaged when using --without gtk-doc. > > > -- > Patrick
