https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997 --- Comment #11 from José Matos <jamatos@xxxxxxxx> --- There is no need to add the files as attachments. :-) Some more low hanging fruit. 1) There is no need to put the license file in place in the %install section. It is enough to do this in the %files section: %files ... %doc LICENSE.txt and voila... this replaces all the logic you have now and it does precisely the same. :-) 2) In reference to point 2 from #6 above: > The documentation is Doxygen-generated HTML which a user could more easily access at mlpack.org (it is prettier there, too). I don't think it's necessary to include that amount of stuff with the distribution, especially when a user could generate it themselves using Doxygen painlessly. I have a different opinion regarding this. If the documentation is provided by upstream it is my opinion that we should provide it, even if we place it on a -doc sub-package that it is not required by the main package. This subject is discussed here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation As a rationale for the above sometimes I am in places with small or no connectivity at all and having an update documentation is a boon. I am perfectly able to run doxygen but if this is a new package that I am exploring pre-available off-line documentation is a bonus in my book. :-) 3) Running rpmlint on the generated rpms shows that libxml is a superfluous requirement and it should be dropped since that dependency is automatically taken from BuildRequires. The same point applies to the boost* libraries, to armadillo and to lapack. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review