https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997 --- Comment #12 from Ryan Curtin <ryan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- I didn't know about the '%doc LICENSE.txt' trick; I have updated that. > 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. Okay; the spec file also now builds mlpack-doc which contains all of the Doxygen documentation. It seems as though an EPEL5 package would not support a noarch subpackage so I did not force the mlpack-doc package to be noarch. Should I include a conditional there (i.e. if not EPEL5, build noarch)? > 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. Oops, I did not run rpmlint on the final rpms. I removed all the superfluous dependencies. There is one issue I think you will bring up which I'd like to pre-empt: > mlpack.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libmlpack.so.1.0.1 exit@GLIBC_2.0 MLPACK provides a logging infrastructure including a 'fatal' log, which terminates the application when an EOL is received. This is intentional behavior and MLPACK functionality depends on it. New spec and SRPM: Spec: http://www.mlpack.org/files/mlpack.spec SRPM: http://www.mlpack.org/files/mlpack-1.0.1-5.fc17.src.rpm -- 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