packages: etckeeper/etckeeper.spec - Up to 0.56
gotar at polanet.pl
Wed Aug 24 17:32:55 CEST 2011
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 14:26:22 +0200, Pawel Golaszewski wrote:
> If you see better method right now - you are welcome.
Of course - leave this bash completion code in main package (I'm
strictly againt using bash at all, but it doesn't bother even me) and
do not care at all about directory owner (until appropriate package claims it).
> But DO THIS, don't talk about "how rpm should work". Any of us know it.
May I? It was introduced here as a big rpm feature! And it was PITA
before all the packages were 'fixed' (creating ridiculous subpackages
like this for nonsesne purpose of meting dumb requirements).
>> Otherwise why don't separate each man page? We could get rid of
>> /usr/share/man from FHS (let's say we create FHS-man subpackage).
> Reductio ad absurdum
1. both are plain text files with NO real dependencies,
2. both are useless without appropriate package (bash, man/pinfo),
3. both 'require' some directory structure only.
> Maybe each file in filesystem? :P
I thought about this writing previous mail, but this was reductio ad
absurdum - man pages are much better (real life) example and this is the
same usage scheme (I'd say that the same number of people use bash as
man - I use zsh and pinfo).
So, if I want to have info pages and regular documentation (%_docdir, so
can't %_excludedocs), but don't use man pages, I could 'save' much more
on dividing man pages into subpackages. But this is totally insane. Just
like separating a few dozens of bash completion files into their own
subpackages. It would be much better to package them as %doc instead...
Tomasz Pala <gotar at pld-linux.org>
More information about the pld-devel-en