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

[Brad Bell]

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.