Documentation-only packages

[Peter Gordon]

Tim Jackson wrote:
> 1. Naming. "php-docs" would fit with the usual convention. "php-manual"
> would be more descriptive of what it actually is. Preferences anyone?
As others have mentioned, I'm in agreement with the "php-manual" naming,
as libfoo-docs seems to be the documentation as a subpackage of libfoo.

> 2. Versioning. The docs aren't actually versioned as such, but dated. OK
> to use date e.g. "20060421" as version number?
Seems reasonable to me. Just make sure you note how you obtain the
specific dated tarball if needed.

> 3. Filesystem location. %{_datadir}/doc/%{name} OK? Or should it be
> %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}?
Why not just make it all %doc and let the RPM macro deal with that? :)

> 4. Localisation. The manual is available in many different languages,
> distributed separately. I am only proposing to package the English
> version at the moment. This creates two issues:
> 
> a) Name - should the package actually be name php-docs-en (or
> php-manual-en) rather than php-docs/php-manual?
Perhaps you could make one big php-manual package, then make subpackages
as needed for each language?
-- 
Peter Gordon (codergeek42)
GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint:
  DD68 A414 56BD 6368 D957 9666 4268 CB7A FFC1 9479

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 251 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20060510/721dd752/attachment.sig>