Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521909
--- Comment #30 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pahan@hubbitus.info 2009-10-04 15:43:43 EDT --- (In reply to comment #29)
I did not know. Please, can you point where it is described more precisely.
It's "common sense" - c.f. the "MANUAL SECTIONS" in man man.
Its nothing say about packaging... In any case, man pages even shouldn't be marked as %doc as I known... Or not?
In general, separate *-doc (sub-)packages only make real sense in very few occasions, e.g.
- when docs are optional supplements (e.g. a pdf's formated docs, which are
already available in some other formats) 2) when docs are "big" and can be shared as "noarch"-subpackages between architectures. 3) when upstream ships docs as separate package ...
Guidelines mention only case 2. 3 - I think is clear, it is not our case now. Global, you are speak about cases when we should make separate -doc sub-package, but I think it is not forbidden in other cases too. I repeat, decision make separate -doc was done, so, nowadays question another: in described 1 and 2 (in 3 content is known from upstream) should be all documentation go into sub-package, or we free separate it as we want?? And one more - would (can) -doc sub-package have any dependency (in concrete situation to build examples)?