Dne 26.4.2011 19:31, Mo Morsi napsal(a):

3) packaging page says %files should look like

but most of latest submitted/accepted packages have
%dir %{geminstdir}
This is triggered by creation of the -doc subpackage. Once you decide to 
have -doc subpackage, then you can't include the whole %{geminstdir}, 
but you have to choose what to goes into what package.

I would like to see the -doc package as a requirement, since the 
documentation is typically several times bigger then the gem itself. 
Also I am not sure about others, but I usually prefer to use web 
documentation (rdoc.info).
There are packages though with little documentation, and I'd think it
makes more sense to ship those with the package itself instead of a
whole nother sub-package.

So my vote is to still leave it up to the packager but it's not a huge
deal for me.

I just like to see change the default, the rest is of course up to packager and reviewer.

4) I don't understand reason behind marking doc files as %doc whereas
I see they are not actually installed under /usr/share/doc. What I
come to know only is that one can search for documentation files using
There are 2 cases from my POV:

1) You assume that the -doc subpackage contains only documentation, 
therefore marking the files as %doc is not required.
2) In you case, the -doc subpackage can contain also test suite for 
example. In this case, the $ rpm -qd package-doc will show the real 
documentation files without the test suite.

Marking files as %doc helps from the perspective that you can pass in
--excludedocs   to "rpm -i".

This is useful for installing packages on systems w/ limited disk space,
or without the documentation dependencies (man for example),

Mamoru should comment on this since he is the fan of not marking files as a %doc in -doc subpackage.

I would like to follow the 2nd approach, but the opinions may differ.

5) gem install command is used with --rdoc in spec in latest submissions.
I would like to see --rdoc to be prohibited. It was always default and I 
don't believe it will change in near future.

Whats the reasoning behind prohibiting it?

Is it better to be explicit and more wordy or to be implicit? Configuration on convention?

The reasoning for me is the same as not including the %clean section (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean), not executing "rm -rf %{buildroot}" on top of install, etc.