Documentation packages in Package Naming Guidelines (and standards)

[Tom 'spot' Callaway]

On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 10:30 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "HC" == Hugo Cisneiros <hugo at devin.com.br> writes:
> 
> HC> BTW, I noted that some packages in Extras have a *-docs
> HC> sub-package instead of *-doc. Talking with Jason Tibbitts in IRC,
> HC> he said that this is normal. Is there a standard for this or it's
> HC> up to the packager/reviewer?
> 
> We have a standard; I'm just continually confused about which one
> actually is the standard.  Both names were used in various wiki pages
> and I just can't keep it straight.  A look through what's currently in
> extras shows little agreement, although more -doc than -docs.
> 
> Getting this in the naming guidelines would indeed be a good idea.
> Write access to those pages has been restricted so we'll have to go
> through the packaging committee (i.e. currently just spot).

All of the three core guidelines documents (Naming, Packaging, Review)
are now consistent on this point. You should use %{name}-doc for
documentation subpackages.

All of this confusion over a typo I made, sorry folks. :)

~spot
-- 
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!