[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Packages guidelines: documentation subpackages name



On 5/14/06, Christopher Stone <chris stone gmail com> wrote:
On 5/14/06, Ville Skyttä <ville skytta iki fi> wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 17:12 +0200, Laurent Rineau wrote:
> > At http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation we
> > can read "it is recommended to use *-doc as the subpackage name", whereas in
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines we can read
> > "- MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -docs subpackage."
> >
> > So, could we agree on one policy? FC and FE seem to mix the two styles of
> > naming. Looking at /var/cache/yum/{core,extras}/primary.xml.gz, if found in
> > fe5:
> >   30 "-doc"
> >   19 "-docs"
> > and in fc5:
> >   16 "-doc"
> >   5 "-docs"
>
> +1 to -doc.
>
> There's also -manual which could fall into the same category and
> packaged just as -doc.  Someone will probably argue that -doc should be
> reserved for subpackages and -manual for ones that are built from their
> own SRPM, I'll say in advance that I disagree and the user doesn't
> care :)


According to the Package Review guidelines it should be "docs".

- MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -docs subpackage.


Whoops didn't read the whole thread, you can ignore my last message,
or just count it as +1 for docs ;-)


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]