[Fedora-packaging] tex/latex doc install location

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Mon Jan 21 20:15:55 UTC 2008

Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 08:12:32AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>> 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}.
> It is more like info pages (and see the other response for more in-depth
> explanations...), and should be marked as %doc. And they are rightly marked
> as %doc in packages that installs them here (texlive, for example).
Sounds good.  FWIW, I think %{_datadir}/texmf/doc is fine.


-------------- 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/20080121/3bed1648/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list