The end user also has to download and install the new docs package everytime
the main bacula package is updated when the -docs package is just
a subpackage (instead of a separate package).
I agree that having a separate package makes a lot of sense here.
That's the main reason for splitting.
The only problem is that the document build system parses a header file
in the Bacula source code to get the versions to put in the front page
of the manuals.
It is acceptable to do the following during the %prep section?
# To get the needed info for the fake header launch the following command in the bacula source folder:
# cat src/version.h | grep ^#define
cat > src/version.h << EOF
#define VERSION "5.2.3"
#define BDATE "16 December 2011"
#define LSMDATE "16Dec11"
#define PROG_COPYRIGHT "Copyright (C) %d-2011 Free Software Foundation Europe e.V.\n"
#define BYEAR "2011" /* year for copyright messages in progs */
Those five lines from the src/version.h file are the only thing needed from the Bacula sources.
By creating that file the sources compile fine. Is that ok?
You cannot discover new oceans unless you have the courage to lose sight of the shore (R. W. Emerson).
packaging mailing list
[Red Hat 9 Bible]
[Big List of Linux Books]