Re: still confusion with the %doc directive in a spec file

[rpjday <rpjday mindspring com>]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2001, Franz Sirl wrote:

> On Monday 31 December 2001 11:38, Giulio Orsero wrote:
> > On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 05:12:09 -0500 (EST), you wrote:
> > >%description
> > >This package contains WonderPics, just random images as
> > >a test for building a noarch RPM.
> > >%prep
> > >exit 0
> > >%build
> > >exit 0
> > >%install
> > >exit 0
> > >%clean
> > >exit 0
> >
> > The %setup macro is also missing.
> 
> yeah, the %setup does an implicit "cd <...>/BUILD/<package>" all other stages 
> rely on (I always stumble over that when I temporarily hack specs after the 
> packaging failed). It would be nice if each of %build/%install/%files would 
> do that themselves, but unfortunately only %setup has the necessary knowledge 
> about the path.
> Hmm, one could say the default is always BUILD/<package-version>, unless a 
> %setup -n was given, but that sounds quite ugly.

ok, this is getting decidedly ugly.  given that all i'm trying to do is
create a simple noarch RPM with a few files inside it, it's not 
unreasonable that i might have a spec file that has no %prep, %setup,
%build or %install steps, as well as no source.

from what i read above, apparently i *must* have a %setup so that the %doc
directive works properly.  but i just tried adding an empty %setup, and 
now i get a complaint that i have no Source.  does this mean that a %setup
directive requires a Source?  and what do i do since i don't have one, and
don't need one, given what i'm trying to do?

and, finally, does this explain why the %doc files i add to the rpm can't
be excluded on installation using "--excludedocs"?

rday