Kevin Fenzi venit, vidit, dixit 07.08.2013 18:39:
On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 17:53:22 +0200
Till Maas <opensource(a)till.name> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:25:19AM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
>
>> The special (pathless) %doc macro now installs docs to unversioned
>> /usr/share/doc/%{name} dir in Rawhide. Packages that don't refer to
>> their doc dir by any other means do not need any changes, just a
>> rebuild.
>>
>> Packages that do refer to their doc dir by some other means will
>> need changes. It depends on the package if not addressing this will
>> result in a build failure or docs still being installed into "wrong"
>> (versioned) dirs. Either way the suggested way to handle this is by
>> using the %{_pkgdocdir} macro which is now in Rawhide, in
>> redhat-rpm-config >= 9.1.0-50.fc20. I'm guessing that this macro
>> might be backported to earlier Fedora releases (where it'll expand
>> to a dir appropriate for those releases) too at some point, but it
>> is unclear when, and also unclear if it will make it into EPEL.
>> Luckily handling
>
> Why is it so hard to just backport this change? And if it needs to be
> decided why does FESCO not just do it? Or who needs to decide it?
Well, The redhat-rpm-config maintainer is on vacation right now.
I guess I could push an update to earlier releases, do you have a
tested patch? ;)
kevin
Now I'm even more confused by:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UnversionedDocdirs
Building an F20 (master) package on F18 does not work, then, even with
the proposed conditional %{_pkgdocdir}. Wouldn't a conditional based on
the Fedora version be a much more robust suggestion to deal with this?
Michael