[Fedora-packaging] Do we need a Rule "Docs should be packaged as %doc"?

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 09:57 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> This can conflict with the absolute rule that the package not depend
> on any of its documentation for proper operation.  This happens with
> about boxes that read LICENSE, and programs with internal
> documentation browsers.  

The packager would have to check the operation of the program to know
which it falls under.  If the documentation really is documentation
rather than data for the program it should be marked %doc, though.

A further question, do docs have to be marked as:
  %doc example/

Or would this be acceptable:
  %doc %{_datadir}/[APP]/example

I lean towards the former as it makes for a central location to look for
local documentation whereas the latter can leave documentation scattered
all over the filesystem.

> Also, some files are treated as %doc without
> needing to be marked as such.
> 
I think this is by pathname, though.
So /usr/share/doc/* /usr/man/* /usr/info/* would be automatically marked
but /usr/share/[APP]/doc would not.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20060808/74a56b13/attachment.sig>