Description of problem: actually you seem to name the doc split package cegui-devel-doc. this makes it sound like a seperate cegui-devel src rpm would exist. i am not sure if theres anything about that in the rpm guidelines, what i know though is that this is not "common practice" atleast. since you split off the docs from the cegui src rpm the in my eyes correct name would be cegui-doc since cegui is the name of the main package. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): latest fc devel
[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.