Re: A good idea from Ville about docdirs

On 08/08/2013 06:03 PM, Fernando Nasser wrote:
> 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.

The document is not talking about %{_javadocdir}, but %{_docdir}, so I
assume that you mean to apply this same policy to it. I like your
suggestion, as per my first email, but I think that it came from your
own brain and is not exactly what the document proposes.

I believe under the Fedora policy foo2 would store docs in
/usr/share/doc/foo2 only (since %{name} is used and never %{version}). I
admit to being confused. If the documkent is talking about UNVERSIONED
dirs, then why is this macro versioned: %{!?_pkgdocdir: %global
_pkgdocdir %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}}?

Keep in mind that Debian has always had unversioned doc dirs, and
Mageia/Mandriva has also had it in recent years. In Fedora, it has been
unversioned and unversioned only for both jars and javadoc dirs for
years now, so this document does not change Fedora Java packages.

Now, JPackage has always had a versioned directory with an
unversioned symlink. I usually apply the same versioning policy to
%{_docdir} as I do to %{_javadocdir}, for consistency. This means a
versioned dir witha  unversioned symlink to %{name}. Correct me if this
is not the same as your proposal.

If you're proposing the scheme that I believe Ralph came up with where
we have a single normal package that is the LATEST, and in this we have
UNVERSIONED files and then we have only versioned files, I am still not
sure if this is the exact thing.