[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Fedora-packaging] COPYING (license) not under docdir

Matthias Saou wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote :

If %{_datadir}/<something>/COPYING is used by a package, it's data, not
documentation. %doc'ing it would be a fault.

Why? I don't understand why you claim (and not even just suggest) that.
%_defaultdocdir even defaults to a sub-directory of %_datadir in our
current setup.

I don't see why a program's data under %_datadir couldn't contain its
own online documentation, accessible from the program itself. And I
really think this should be considered perfectly fine, as long as all
of the relevant files are tagged as %doc in order to be easily
identifiable when querying the package.

This is even probably the reason why the %doc tag exists, since
otherwise, why would you need to query a package for its documentation
if it was mandatory for all of it to be
under /usr/share/doc/name-version-rel?

Documentation placed under %_datadir is both data *and* documentation. It's data from the point of view that the program uses it at runtime. As a result of this, that data should *not* be marked %doc because it would then be excluded from installation if the package was installed using "--excludedocs", and that would break the packaging rule:

   If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
   runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the
   program must run properly if it is not present.

In the case under discussion, this would be broken if the license file under %_datadir was not installed, because the GTK GUI wants to be able to display it.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]