[Fedora-packaging] Re: New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml
bradbell at seanet.com
Wed Mar 5 13:13:56 UTC 2008
fedora-packaging-request at redhat.com wrote:
> Send Fedora-packaging mailing list submissions to
> fedora-packaging at redhat.com
> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>> On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 16:53 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>> - Clarify where documentation should go. Currently my practice has
>>> been to put just the license file (if any) in the main package's %doc,
>>> and the license file plus all other documentation & examples in
>>> the devel subpackage. This duplicates (only) the license file, but
>>> that seems acceptable since we shouldn't distribute software without
>>> its license.
>> -devel packages should Require the main package, thus, there really
>> isn't any need for the duplicate license copy.
The cppad package is totally C++ include files. There is a cppad-devel
and cppad-doc subpackage, but there is no main package. So the rule
above does not apply in this case.
More information about the Fedora-packaging