[Fedora-packaging] tex/latex doc install location

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Mon Jan 21 16:12:32 UTC 2008

Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> On 21/01/2008, Patrice Dumas <pertusus at free.fr> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 04:25:49PM +0000, José Matos wrote:
>>>> In fedora should we use this system and put the doc files below
>>>> /usr/share/texmf/doc/ or use %doc?
>>>   Notice that this is in line with other languages, the documentation for R
>>> packages (as an example) in under the R tree. I would like to favour the
>>> texmf tree as the natural packaging place of latex documentation.
>> Anybody else has an advice?
> My feeling is we want to make it as easy as possible for users to find
> the docs they need. Adding lots of different locations really is
> counter to that desire, and we should strive to keep docs in one
> location.
I also favor this reasoning but I know that we presently have other 
examples of documentation following a different upstream convention (For 
instance, ruby gems).  In addition, this case may be more like man, 
info, or ghelp than like ruby gems.

One thing I'd like to ask about from the original post::
   In tex/latex bundled in fedora (I guess it comes from tetex and it is
   now in texlive) there is a simple system to view documentation.

What is this "simple system"?  We do have a rule that nothing marked as 
%doc should break an application if it is not present on the system.  If 
this help system is integrated into applications (like ghelp for gnome) 
then this would count under that rule.  If it's more like man and info 
pages then we'd want them to be marked as doc even if they are located 
somewhere other than %{_docdir}.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20080121/b6f929eb/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list