On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 12:16:28PM +0100, Matthias Saou wrote:
> Once upon a time, Silke wrote :
>
> > OK, thanks.
> > But still don't understand why it works if I include
> > %files
> > %{_mandir}/*
> > [...]
> >
> >
> > The filelist then contains (in my example)
> >
> > [...]
> > /usr/share/man/man1
> > /usr/share/man/man1/cs2cs.1.gz
> > /usr/share/man/man1/geod.1.gz
> > /usr/share/man/man1/nad2nad.1.gz
> > /usr/share/man/man1/proj.1.gz
> > /usr/share/man/man3
> > /usr/share/man/man3/pj_init.3.gz
> > [...]
> >
> > But installing and erasing this package I didn't get any error
> > message for /usr/share/man/man1 resp. man3.
> >
> > Can you explain me that?
>
> Nope I can't, I would have thought that two error messages would have been
> displayed... still, having /usr/share/man/man1 and /usr/share/man/man3
> owned by the package is ugly, since I would also guess that "rpm -qf" on
> those would tell you they belong to that package.
>
> Including %{_mandir}/*/* or %{_mandir}/man?/* (or, or, etc.) isn't much
> more complicated and would give the clean expected result.
I believe rpm has special automagic man handling, so that is probably
the place where you get away with this (and it's actually nice, given
the unreliability of predicting wheather the pages are compressed or
not). Maybe you should test with something else as well?
--
serveri:
Jos heität päätä pienemmän esineen sen ohi,
esine siirtyy möhkäleen kiertoradalle.
Attachment:
pgp00020.pgp
Description: PGP signature