Bug 196440

[hans@shalem vice]$ yum list '*devel-doc*'
Loading "installonlyn" plugin
Setting up repositories
Reading repository metadata in from local files
Available Packages
cegui-devel-doc.i386                     0.4.1-8.fc6            extras-developme
cegui-devel-doc.x86_64                   0.4.1-8.fc6            extras-developme
qt-devel-docs.i386                       1:3.3.6-7              development-i386
qt-devel-docs.x86_64                     1:3.3.6-7              development     
[hans@shalem vice]$

As you can see other package with HUGE developer oriented (not end user)
documentation do the same.

Ian, feel free to close this as notabug.

#1 if this is supposed to be the right approach i am pretty tempted to open bugs
with the other packages where its handled different then.

maybe its just me but more consitant behaviour would be nice.

1) any examples of libraries with so HUGE development docs, the CEGUI docs way
in at a formidable 70 Mb or so.
2) If you want consistency for things like this don't start filing bugs like
crazy instead discuss it on the mailinglist, get guidelines added to the package
guidelines for this and then (and only then) you can start filing bugs.

#3
1) splitting docs is a nice nice... there are other packages yet that pull in a
massive amount of docs... but since i cant find a guideline for splitting em i
wont file the bugs either

2) argument ackknowleged... closing bug and just putting my sunglasses on when i
look at the naming scheme so i dont get annoyed.

(In reply to comment #4)
> #3
> 1) splitting docs is a nice nice... there are other packages yet that pull in a
> massive amount of docs... but since i cant find a guideline for splitting em i
> wont file the bugs either
> 

Actually the review guidelines are clear that if the docs are HUGE and not
nescesarry to function they should be split. Since the main function of a -devel
package is to compile things, I for one say that huge development docs shiould
be split from the -devel package. The only thing which isn't clear is how these
split docs should be called: package-doc or package-devel-doc.

So there are guidelines about splitting, just not about the name :)

#5
if i had more time id reread those guidelines and start to get flamed on a
mailinglist with discussing that stuff...
but i will rather go back now fixing upstream code issues to get stuff ready for
fedora. this stuff can be taken care about by non coders (and in my eyes should).

i dont want to sound nitpicking etc... but is "huge" defined aswell?

actually the in my eyes "common naming scheme" since i started packaging with rh
7.x was basename-doc ... where as you use as basename the "name" of the package
src rpm for every split you do.

i just found it wierd to use the base for split as split package.

the way it currently is one can really do everything with the split package
splits it seems

stuff like name-devel-anothersubsplitnaming should be working too (like
name-devel-mysql for mysql relevant stuff split off from the devel package.)

maybe then even name-devel-mysql-docs for the relevant docs.

it just looks like from outer space to me.

As far as I'm aware there's no official definition of huge, infact IIRC the 
packaging guidelines leave it up to the packager's common sense. I intend to 
leave it as is - unless there's official word to say otherwise.