[Fedora-packaging] Re: New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml

Parag N(पराग़) panemade at gmail.com
Wed Mar 5 07:05:18 UTC 2008

On 05 Mar 2008 00:14:10 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs at math.uh.edu> wrote:
> >>>>> "PN" == Parag N(पराग़) <panemade at gmail.com> writes:
>  PN> I prefer to see this documented in guidelines instead to discuss
>  PN> this on fedora-packaging or say on fedora-devel list. I assume
>  PN> same will be applied for other %doc files AUTHORS ChangeLog README
>  PN> that is not to include them if they are same files already
>  PN> included in main package right?
>  Well, the existing guidelines already cover this by explicitly banning
>  duplicates in the %files list.  I see the current discussion as
>  addressing the question of whether there are any permissible
>  exceptions to that, and whether the guidelines need to be modified to
>  allow them.  That is obviously on topic for this list.

  Yes. Review guidelines already covered them. But I think I confused
and assumed that we need to add  now explicitly some text like "keep
the license file in the main package and drop it from the -devel one
as that requires the main package anyways." at

 Like we already have "for example API documentation belongs in the
-devel subpackage, not the main one" written in Documentation section
in Packaging Guidelines Page. So how about mentioning similar for
license file inclusion?

 Anyway it may also looks like duplication of guideline rules at 2 places.


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list