On 11/05/16 21:15, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
On 2016-05-11 11:26, David Stacey wrote:
On 11/05/16 07:17, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
On 2016-05-11 00:07, Marco Atzeri wrote:
So at this stage not the documentation subpackages, but only if all
subpackages are in this category. correct ?
At this time we are only considering those where all subpackages are
noarch, i.e. ARCH=noarch is (or will be) defined.
Is it worth making libpoco-doc a separate package? It might be cleaner
that way, as the documentation and source code are in different tarballs
upstream.
Your call, it doesn't appear that anything is gained from building it
together with poco itself. I'd name the sources poco-doc and either:
OBSOLETES=libpoco-doc
or:
PKG_NAMES="libpoco-doc"
libpoco_doc_CONTENTS="usr/share/doc/poco/html/"
Thank you for your advice. I think I'd like to split the documentation
into a separate package, as it will make it easier to maintain. As I'm
creating a new top-level package, I'll send an ITP separately.
Dave.
