On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 10:39:53AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 17:53:22 +0200
> Till Maas wrote:
> > Why is it so hard to just backport this change? And if it needs to be
> > decided why does FESCO not just do it? Or who needs to decide it?
>
> Well, The redhat-rpm-config main
On 2013-08-08 17:03, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UnversionedDocdirs
>
> Building an F20 (master) package on F18 does not work, then, even with
> the proposed conditional %{_pkgdocdir}.
Sure it does, I've done dozens of them. Can't say much more without
seeing
Michael J Gruber venit, vidit, dixit 08.08.2013 16:03:
> Kevin Fenzi venit, vidit, dixit 07.08.2013 18:39:
>> On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 17:53:22 +0200
>> Till Maas wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:25:19AM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
>>>
The special (pathless) %doc macro now installs docs to u
On 8 August 2013 16:03, Michael J Gruber <
michaeljgruber+fedora-li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Building an F20 (master) package on F18 does not work, then, even with
> the proposed conditional %{_pkgdocdir}. Wouldn't a conditional based on
> the Fedora version be a much more robust suggestion to deal
Kevin Fenzi venit, vidit, dixit 07.08.2013 18:39:
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 17:53:22 +0200
> Till Maas wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:25:19AM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
>>
>>> The special (pathless) %doc macro now installs docs to unversioned
>>> /usr/share/doc/%{name} dir in Rawhide. Packages
On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 17:53:22 +0200
Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:25:19AM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
>
> > The special (pathless) %doc macro now installs docs to unversioned
> > /usr/share/doc/%{name} dir in Rawhide. Packages that don't refer to
> > their doc dir by any other means
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:25:19AM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> The special (pathless) %doc macro now installs docs to unversioned
> /usr/share/doc/%{name} dir in Rawhide. Packages that don't refer to
> their doc dir by any other means do not need any changes, just a
> rebuild.
>
> Packages that
On 2013-08-05 11:14, Ondrej Kozina wrote:
> could you please initiate an update in
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25files_prefixes
> page to reflect the change in %doc macro? It's literally and exactly
> misleading righ now:)
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_
On 08/05/2013 09:38 AM, Roman Rakus wrote:
On 07/23/2013 10:22 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
Hello,
Related to the unversioned docdirs F-20 feature [1], some changes with
doc packages will be needed in a bunch of packages. More info will
follow later, but I've started looking into the list of affecte
Hello,
could you please initiate an update in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25files_prefixes
page to reflect the change in %doc macro? It's literally and exactly
misleading righ now:)
Thank you
Ondrej
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://a
On 07/23/2013 10:22 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
Hello,
Related to the unversioned docdirs F-20 feature [1], some changes with
doc packages will be needed in a bunch of packages. More info will
follow later, but I've started looking into the list of affected ones.
Some related things are still being
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 20:38:21 +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
> I'm not convinced that there is a real need to give each subpackage its
> own directory in /usr/share/doc.
For example -devel subpackage documentation is typically not interesting for
a user searching normal documentation.
Moreover one ty
Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>For libraries it makes
>sense to separate end-user documentation (in %{name}) and programmer's
>documentation (in %{name}-devel).
If you're talking about packages, then yes, it makes perfect sense to
separate documentation into different subpackages. (Not that libraries
usua
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Jan Kratochvil
wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:58:19 +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
>> > Therefore currently keeping the path /usr/share/doc/gdb-doc/ for
>> > gdb-doc.rpm.
>>
>> If you wanted to move to /usr/share/doc/gdb, you could take advantage of
>> the %{_pkgdocdi
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:58:19 +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > If it should be /usr/share/doc/gdb/ then rpm macros need to be changed first
> > accordingly to s/-doc$// on the directory name.
>
> I don't think that's desirable.
And a reason why?
> > Therefore currently keeping the path /usr/share/
On 2013-07-29 16:54, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> This does not work, gdb.spec:
> %files doc
> %doc %{gdb_build}/gdb/doc/{gdb,annotate}.{html,pdf}
> ->
> /usr/share/doc/gdb-doc/annotate.html
> /usr/share/doc/gdb-doc/annotate.pdf
> /usr/share/doc/gdb-doc/gdb.html
> /usr/share/doc/gdb-doc/gdb.pdf
Right,
On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 21:36:54 +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On the other hand with doc-only subpackages
> I personally think that it would often make sense to install into the
> main package's docdir instead of creating a separate dir, e.g. for a
> package named foo, IMO it's better to have all docs
On 2013-07-28 21:17, Björn Persson wrote:
> Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > The special (pathless) %doc macro now installs docs to unversioned
> > /usr/share/doc/%{name} dir in Rawhide.
>
> Not quite, it appears. %{name} is the name of the main package, but
> %doc still produces a separate directory for ea
Ville Skyttä wrote:
>The special (pathless) %doc macro now installs docs to unversioned
>/usr/share/doc/%{name} dir in Rawhide.
Not quite, it appears. %{name} is the name of the main package, but
%doc still produces a separate directory for each subpackage.
_docdir_fmt seems to be defined as "%%{
On 2013-07-27 00:02, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 07/26/2013 03:14 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
>> mooninite mediawiki mooninite,puiterwijk
>> mooninite mingw-ftplib epienbro
>
> These seem to be a false positive. They both use %doc and do not list
> any files manually in a doc folder. ...or am I mi
On 07/26/2013 03:14 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> mooninite mediawiki mooninite,puiterwijk
> mooninite mingw-ftplib epienbro
These seem to be a false positive. They both use %doc and do not list
any files manually in a doc folder. ...or am I missing something?
Thanks,
Michael
--
devel mailing list
On 2013-07-26 11:25, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> That list ended up longer than I thought. Unfortunately I don't have
> access to it right now, but will post it later today
Here goes the list as run through fedoradev-pkgowners (owner packagename
comaintainers):
abompard ksshaskpass
abrt-team abrt jfi
And some packages being reviewed also need a change.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> Related to the unversioned docdirs F-20 feature [1], some changes with
> doc packages will be needed in a bunch of packages. More info will
> follow later,
Ok, here it goes:
The special (pathless) %doc macro now installs docs to unversioned
Hello,
Related to the unversioned docdirs F-20 feature [1], some changes with
doc packages will be needed in a bunch of packages. More info will
follow later, but I've started looking into the list of affected ones.
Some related things are still being discussed on the packaging@ mailing
list.
Whi
25 matches
Mail list logo
