On Tue, May 10, 2005, Michael Schloh wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2005, Matthias Kurz wrote:
> > On Tue, May 10, 2005, Matthias Kurz wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 09, 2005, Michael Schloh wrote:
> >[...]
> >>> same reason. Marking files with %docdir is going to be a one shot
> >>> operation
> >>> across all packages that include documentation.
> >>>
> > Does this mean that the %docdir specifications accumulate and that there
> > could be an overflow ?
> There are no %docdir tags in any spec files to avoid several ad hoc document
> packaging strategies that could be difficult to unify in the future.
Yes. I thought, %docdir is just an abbreviation for
%doc doc/dir
%doc doc/dir/*
%doc doc/dir/*/*
%doc doc/dir/*/*/*
..
so that you can just do
%docdir doc/dir
One should check, whether there is any side effect, though.
> > Generally i also recommended a "global" option %with_docs. It's ugly to
> > have to specify this with every package. I think there are only two valid
> > strategies. Install every (additional) doc or install no (additional) doc.
> > Installing docs "on demand" will always fail. When you need it, it will
> > not be there. YMMV
> >
> Can you please clarify your suggestion, and how a new OpenPKG feature
> '%with_docs' would be used in a spef file?
I only say that there should be a "global" selection, not only a package
by package one (package::with_docs) - and i thought that this is already
realized by the --include/excludedocs and the %_excludedocs default.
> So far, we have a few things which I hope is clear to everyone. Please make
> corrections if any of the following is wrong:
>
> --includedocs (RPM feature): includes files tagged with '%doc'
> --excludedocs (RPM feature): excludes files tagged with '%doc' (the default)
> %doc (RPM feature): describes a file as optional documentation
> %docdir (RPM feature): describes a directory as containing documentation
> with_doc (OpenPKG feature): inconsistent option which should be removed
> $ openpkg rpm -qd <pkg> (qd is RPM feature): list documentation
>
> We might consider the questions:
>
> 1. How do we want to consistently use the tags '%doc' and '%docdir'?
> 2. Do we package absolutely all vendor docs even when they overlap?
> - When a user's guide is available in all .html, .ps, and .pdf,
> then which do we prefer to package?
All i'd say is, that, when a user's guide is available, it should be
included as additional doc. As user, i _personally_ prefer .html. '.pdf'
only, when there is no .html. I would not need .ps. As packager, i would
dump each and everything in the package, so that i would not have to unpack
and dig through the vendor sources to search for additional stuff. But i'm
sure there are people that would stop me :)
> 3. Where do the docs go?
> - %{l_prefix}/share/<package>/<here>?
> - %{l_prefix}/share/<package>/doc/<here>?
I have no preferences, here. I used .../share/pkg/doc for text and
../share/pkg/html for .html because i thought i saw this in other packages.
The welcome.html from the ant package is a border case.
> ...and of course the organisational questions:
>
> Where do we document and enforce this new standard?
> - Documented in the long outdated handbook?
> - Documented in a new 'package standards' document?
> - Not documented anywhere, and only enforced?
> - Enforced in the speclint script of openpkg-tools?
Tell me.
(mk)
--
Matthias Kurz; Fuldastr. 3; D-28199 Bremen; VOICE +49 421 53 600 47
>> Im prämotorischen Cortex kann jeder ein Held sein. (bdw) <<
______________________________________________________________________
The OpenPKG Project www.openpkg.org
Developer Communication List openpkg-dev@openpkg.org
