Re: Including Documentation files in the SPEC file

[Eli Carter <eli carter inet com>]

Mark Amidon wrote:
> 
> Eli Carter wrote:
> >
> > Mark Amidon wrote:
> > >
> > > Cameron Scott ICM N MC MI SI 6 wrote:
> > > > Why can't you do:
> > > > %description -f <path to documentation file>   ???
> > >
> > > Just try querying an uninstalled .rpm file and see how far you get.
> > >
> > > > You can include a files list - why not a document file for a
> > > > description?
> > >
> > > Because the contents of an .rpm file are compressed, so you couldn't
> > > read the internal description file without unpacking the fool thing.
> >
> > Oh?
> > rpm -qp *.rpm --list
> > This will give you the filelist, even if it was created with %files -f.
> > It appears that the filelist is stored uncompressed in the rpm, judging
> > from a 'strings' output (Jeff, correct me if I'm wrong...)
> 
> Oh sure, I understood that.  Now try reading the contents of one of
> those files without unpackaging.
> 
> > But the few lines or paragraphs in the SPEC file would be handy to have
> > in a separate document or generated at build time.
> 
> I hadn't considered that, so let me restate it just to see whether I'm
> understanding you:
> 
>         Could %description use a file to put the description text
>         into the header of the .rpm file?
> 
> > I think the original poster's feature request is a reasonable one.
> 
> Much more reasonable, yes, but as the "release" of the package must
> still be updated by editing the SPEC file, any changes to the
> description could be made at that time anyway.

rpm appears to use the file given on a '%files -f' line in creating the
rpm header.
Likewise, I would expect the '%description -f' Cameron proposed, to use
the given file in generating the rpm header.  (And thus, "unpacking the
fool thing"[1] would not be necessary to read the description.)

Yes, the release would need to be updated, but I could see using that
brief description of a package in an introduction in the documentation
(FAQ: What is xyz?).  Adding the '-f' would eliminate the duplication
between that file and the spec.  You could accomplish something similiar
if you wanted to generate your spec file... And if you used a Makefile
to do that... (make -> rpm -bb -> configure -> make) *shudder*

The idea sounds useful, but it's all hypothetical at this point, and I'm
not volunteering to code it.  (Jeff was looking for something to do in
his spare time, right? ;P )

Feeping Creaturism, doncha love it?  ;)

Eli

[1] From your reply to Cameron.

--------------------.     Real Users find the one combination of bizarre
Eli Carter           \ input values that shuts down the system for days.
eli.carter(a)inet.com `-------------------------------------------------