On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 08:39:21AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > End of August I've opened tickets about duplicate and potentially > conflicting (because if noarch <-> arch differences) %doc files. > The response from packagers has not been brilliant so far. > > These are _package bugs_ specific to Fedora, so it's the responsibility > of a Fedora Packager to fix them. It's a mistake in the spec file, not > in the packaged software. > > "Potentially conflicting" may mean that several subpackages could not > be installed at once and would cause a transaction error. > > Rather than spamming bugzilla with lots of NEEDINFO calls, hereby I'd > like to raise awareness of the issue. I don't understand why packagers > don't respond in bugzilla. Fedora 20 is near. I've read this several times, and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UnversionedDocdirs and I still don't understand what this message means. How would this cause subpackage conflicts? What has arch/noarch got to do with anything? Can you point to an example of a packaging problem? Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones libguestfs lets you edit virtual machines. Supports shell scripting, bindings from many languages. http://libguestfs.org -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
