"Please split doc into foo-doc subpackage" -> why?

[Panu Matilainen]

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
>> I just recieved one of these bugs (#492446), and I'm not sure
>> why we'd do this for any package.
>> 
>> If we split the docs like this:
>> 
>> - it would be inconsistent per-package
>> -- so an admin wouldn't know whether a package had docs or not in
>>   the main package without manually trying to install a foo-doc
>>   subpackage
>> -- they would no longer be there by default if they're needed
>> 
>> Hence, why do this, when rpm already has a --nodocs flag and
>> macro that can be used for space savings on live images?
>
> yum's tsflags option in yum.conf also accepts 'nodocs'
>
> unfortunately, if you're using rpm -V it won't know about --nodocs being 
> passed in on install.

Sure it does:

[root at localhost ~]# rpm -U --nodocs /tmp/telnet-0.17-42.fc9.x86_64.rpm
[root at localhost ~]# rpm -qs telnet
normal        /usr/bin/telnet
not installed /usr/share/man/man1/telnet.1.gz
[root at localhost ~]# rpm -V telnet
[root at localhost ~]#

Verify checks out clean as the recorded file state says the file is not 
even *supposed* to be there. Compared to manually removing it:

[root at localhost ~]# rpm -U /tmp/telnet-0.17-42.fc9.x86_64.rpm
[root at localhost ~]# rm -f /usr/share/man/man1/telnet.1.gz
[root at localhost ~]# rpm -qs telnet
normal        /usr/bin/telnet
normal        /usr/share/man/man1/telnet.1.gz
[root at localhost ~]# rpm -V telnet
missing   d /usr/share/man/man1/telnet.1.gz
[root at localhost ~]#

 	- Panu -