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.
> 

Maybe I misunderstood it, we can check this with Ville.

> 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}}?
> 

The idea of this macro is that it can be used in the xxx case (use unversioned) and in the xxx2 case (will use versioned).


> 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.
> 

Are their javadocs unversioned?  Really?  I missed that change.
This change in particular we should adopt.

> 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.

I want to get rid of the versioned one except on the odd legacy or progressive versions of a package.

What I would love to have is some way to index the installed javadocs, so one could point to a place that has a list of javadocs installed one can follow.  We'd have to maintain this as we install or uninstall packages.  But with unversioned we don't need to do that for upgrades.

> 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.
> 

Not sure if I understood, unversioned or versioned?

Cheers,
Fernando