Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961141 --- Comment #20 from Oron Peled <oron@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Spec URL: http://oron.fedorapeople.org/deb-package/debhelper.spec SRPM URL: http://oron.fedorapeople.org/deb-package/debhelper-9.20120909-1.fc18.src.rpm * Manual pages (In reply to comment #16): - Found a far better solution: install man-pages via dh_installman - Luckily, man-pages layout is FHS compliant in both Fedora/Debian - The debhelper-mans.lang is generated as before (Fedora specific). * Dependencies (In reply to comment #19 and comment 18): - Build-Requires: dpkg-devel # No need for specific version (both dpkg 1.15.x and 1.16.x are OK) - Requires: libdpkg-perl # No need to specify version, libdpkg-perl was added only at 1.16.x # Not a '*-devel' package -- Good. # Minor problem: rpmlint complains about 'noarch' debhelper that depends on 'lib*' package. * So what about rpmlint? - Basically, rpmlint is wrong: the libdpkg-perl contains only pure perl modules (updated bug #648384 so that dpkg.spec correctly marks libdpkg-perl is 'noarch') - Either we surrender to rpmlint and rename libdpkg-perl. IMO it's a bad idea -- better stick to upstream names per Fedora policy. - Or we ignore this rpmlint error (maybe file a bug against rpmlint?) * ... and we are still blocked by bug #648384 -- dpkg too old -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=VUARDA9Yoh&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review