Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=520663 --- Comment #6 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michael.silvanus@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-02 19:00:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > > Why does doc require telepathy-farsight-devel to build? > > I was including tests in the -doc package so I thought it was fair to keep the > BuildRequires in there. I deleted the tests now and moved the BuildRequires > for them in the main BuildRequires section. > I see. Well, if you intend for the users to be able to build the tests, then it should have been a Requires:, not a BuildRequires: . But it's better to get the tests run as part of the build process anyway. > http://mapleoin.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/telepathy-qt4/telepathy-qt4.spec.2 > http://mapleoin.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/telepathy-qt4/telepathy-qt4-0.1.10-3.fc11.src.rpm The patch can be cleaned up further: it appears that only the last part, that modifies Makefile.in to not build examples, need to be kept. You can drop all the touch scriptlets too. - the Requires: qt in the main package is unnecessary, as your package currently only generates static library archives. If/when it generates dynamic .so.* files, the requirement on the correct libqt will be automatically computed by RPM anyway. Also, your -devel package currently Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}, but the main package is not actually generated (because it contains no files). You'd want to remove that requirement. And modify it for -doc, to require the -devel subpackage instead. (and hold on for a bit on the last paragraph -- I'll clarify on the packaging list, just in case. static libs don't come often). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review