I'm a bit lost on the use of %doc for manpages.

I'm building a package of Heimdal Kerberos, so I'm following a lot of
the MIT krb5 package as a pattern.

Should manpages be marked as %doc, or just other documentation?

Thanks,

Andrew Bartlett
--
Andrew Bartlett
http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 09:51 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> I'm a bit lost on the use of %doc for manpages.
>
> I'm building a package of Heimdal Kerberos, so I'm following a lot of
> the MIT krb5 package as a pattern.
>
> Should manpages be marked as %doc, or just other documentation?

Files under /usr/share/{man,info} are automagically marked %doc by
rpmbuild.

--
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet@gmail.com>

PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 21:35 -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 09:51 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > I'm a bit lost on the use of %doc for manpages.
> >
> > I'm building a package of Heimdal Kerberos, so I'm following a lot of
> > the MIT krb5 package as a pattern.
> >
> > Should manpages be marked as %doc, or just other documentation?
>
> Files under /usr/share/{man,info} are automagically marked %doc by
> rpmbuild.

Following the pattern long-established history and from the MIT krb5
pacakge, I'm using a new directory (yes, I know I need to ask approval)
of /usr/heimdal, so I think that means I need to manually mark them as %
doc.

Thanks for the info,

Andrew Bartlett

--
Andrew Bartlett
http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

Le vendredi 20 juin 2008 à 12:28 +1000, Andrew Bartlett a écrit :
> On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 21:35 -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 09:51 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > I'm a bit lost on the use of %doc for manpages.
> > >
> > > I'm building a package of Heimdal Kerberos, so I'm following a lot of
> > > the MIT krb5 package as a pattern.
> > >
> > > Should manpages be marked as %doc, or just other documentation?
> >
> > Files under /usr/share/{man,info} are automagically marked %doc by
> > rpmbuild.
>
> Following the pattern long-established history and from the MIT krb5
> pacakge, I'm using a new directory (yes, I know I need to ask approval)
> of /usr/heimdal, so I think that means I need to manually mark them as %
> doc.

Please follow the FHS rules and do not create new roots where the FHS
says you should not. I certainly hope the krb packages get fixed someday
but in the meanwhile that's no reason to repeat their mistakes

--
Nicolas Mailhot
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 08:18 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le vendredi 20 juin 2008 à 12:28 +1000, Andrew Bartlett a écrit :
> > On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 21:35 -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 09:51 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > > I'm a bit lost on the use of %doc for manpages.
> > > >
> > > > I'm building a package of Heimdal Kerberos, so I'm following a lot of
> > > > the MIT krb5 package as a pattern.
> > > >
> > > > Should manpages be marked as %doc, or just other documentation?
> > >
> > > Files under /usr/share/{man,info} are automagically marked %doc by
> > > rpmbuild.
> >
> > Following the pattern long-established history and from the MIT krb5
> > pacakge, I'm using a new directory (yes, I know I need to ask approval)
> > of /usr/heimdal, so I think that means I need to manually mark them as %
> > doc.
>
> Please follow the FHS rules and do not create new roots where the FHS
> says you should not. I certainly hope the krb packages get fixed someday
> but in the meanwhile that's no reason to repeat their mistakes

No worries, I'll move them. (The MIT krb5 package's use of a non-FHS
prefix allows me to avoid conflicts ;-)

Andrew Bartlett
--
Andrew Bartlett
http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging