Re: A good idea from Ville about docdirs

Summary:

regular package

only unversioned javadocs with real files

legacy of progressive packages (like xxx2 or something):

versioned javadocs only with real files


AFAIU the versioned files are gone from the regular packages and we only have real files in the unversioned javadocs/%{name} location so it is not a symlink anymore.


Isn't it what that document proposes?


Cheers,
Fernando

----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Walluck" <[email protected]>
> To: "Discussion about JPackage project" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2013 5:53:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [JPackage-discuss] A good idea from Ville about docdirs
> 
> On 08/08/2013 04:09 PM, Fernando Nasser wrote:
> > Summarizing, javadocs from xxx would go under xxx
> > 
> > If and only if we have a xxx2 or something, that one would install
> > under xxx-%{version} instead
> > 
> > We may or may not add the macro (to jpp-utils?) but the change to
> > the default installation alone makes lots of sense.
> 
> I have already tried to do this in some packages---with the jars
> also.
> 
> The real files are kept with their upstream versioned names, and the
> symlinks are the only thing renamed so as to not conflict with
> another
> package.
> 
> Obviously, versioned names do not need to be changed in order to
> avoid a
> file conflict so they can be treated the same as upstream.
> 
> By the way, I think that in Fedora's case they don't use symlinks at
> all. For the jars and javadoc dir it's unversioned names only. In
> this
> case, he is probably suggesting a versioned name only (with no
> unversioned symlink).
> 
> _______________________________________________
> JPackage-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.zarb.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/jpackage-discuss
>