autofs - patches in %doc?

[Ian Kent]

On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 13:03 -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Michael Schwendt <mschwendt at gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > $ du -h /usr/share/doc/autofs-5.0.3/*.patch
> > 76K     /usr/share/doc/autofs-5.0.3/autofs4-2.6.10-v5-update.patch
> > 76K     /usr/share/doc/autofs-5.0.3/autofs4-2.6.11-v5-update.patch
> > 76K     /usr/share/doc/autofs-5.0.3/autofs4-2.6.12-v5-update.patch
> > 76K     /usr/share/doc/autofs-5.0.3/autofs4-2.6.13-v5-update.patch
> > 76K     /usr/share/doc/autofs-5.0.3/autofs4-2.6.14-v5-update.patch
> > 76K     /usr/share/doc/autofs-5.0.3/autofs4-2.6.15-v5-update.patch
> > 76K     /usr/share/doc/autofs-5.0.3/autofs4-2.6.16-v5-update.patch
> > 28K     /usr/share/doc/autofs-5.0.3/autofs4-2.6.17-v5-update.patch
> > 28K     /usr/share/doc/autofs-5.0.3/autofs4-2.6.18-v5-update.patch
> > 20K     /usr/share/doc/autofs-5.0.3/autofs4-2.6.19-v5-update.patch
> > 16K     /usr/share/doc/autofs-5.0.3/autofs4-2.6.20-v5-update.patch
> > 8.0K    /usr/share/doc/autofs-5.0.3/autofs4-2.6.21-v5-update.patch
> > 8.0K    /usr/share/doc/autofs-5.0.3/autofs4-2.6.22-v5-update.patch
> > 4.0K    /usr/share/doc/autofs-5.0.3/autofs4-2.6.23-v5-update.patch
> > 76K     /usr/share/doc/autofs-5.0.3/autofs4-2.6.9-v5-update.patch
> > 4.0K    /usr/share/doc/autofs-5.0.3/util-linux-2.12a-flock.patch
> > 4.0K    /usr/share/doc/autofs-5.0.3/util-linux-2.12q-flock.patch
> >
> > [$ du -h autofs-5.0.4/patches
> > 2.0M    autofs-5.0.4/patches
> > ]
> >
> > So, we've got ~48K of %changelog details in the autofs.spec, but the
> > question why the %doc line explicitly includes  patches/*  is not answered.
> > That clutters up the docdir unnecessarily.
> >
> > Who can tell why this is done?

Oh .. oops.
        
Once upon a time there were only a couple patches and they were small
and they weren't included in the kernel so it was sensible to place them
in the docs directory in case they were needed.
        
But nowadays they aren't needed so much, especially the patches for the
older kernels, as the updates make there way into Fedora kernels in
reasonable time.
        
Log a bug and we'll fix this.
    
Ian