https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979124 --- Comment #4 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> --- > From the link you gave me: Examples, not mandatory, some of them are debatable, too. ;) > For some packages it may be helpful to expand the package name > that is an acronym, e.g. for the package "gimp", the summary > could be "GNU Image Manipulation Program". "Image manipulation program" would be sufficient. The description could expand on the "GNU" part in the name and whether/why it matters. > This looks exactly like what I am doing. I didn't say the current %summary would be a blocker. But could it be improved? That might be difficult. The program is not specific to "Qt", so why mention Qt in the summary at all? What about these two? Next-generation build system for projects Build suite from the Qt Project Simplify the build process for developing projects across multiple platforms Roughly copied from: http://doc-snapshot.qt-project.org/qbs/ > Hm. I thought %doc would do exactly that. I did not know that it > only puts it into the -doc package (I also was unable to find any > documentation about this right now :/). The %doc macro is specific to the %files section you use it within, and what it does depends on the type of file path you apply it to: http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-inside-files-list-directives.html > > * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package > > What do you mean with this? You currently do Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} in the subpackages, but the guidelines suggest you do Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} to make those dependencies arch-specific. > Shall I require the base package from the doc subpackage too? No. Separate documentation -doc packages typically don't require the base package. It should be possible to install documentation without having to install a program and all its dependencies. > > * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories > > Hm. Could you give some info on this? What do I do wrong? > > Should the main package maybe own %{_datadir}/%{name}/modules/? You're on the right track. :-) There are several "unowned" directories in your package. They are easy to spot in the spec file or when listing the package contents with e.g. "rpmls -p …" or "rpm -qlp …". > > The -cpp and -qt subpackages don't even add any dependencies. > > Sorry I do not understand. Why do you put those files into separate (= optional) packages at all? Why not include those files in the main "qbs" package? What is the benefit of splitting them off? > What kind of depedencies do you expect? Well, I don't understand why you split off those files. A query such as rpm -qpR qbs-cpp-1.0.1-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm currently does not list any requirement not already required by the base package. > Another thing i just realized. doc should probably be noarch, right? Good idea. -- 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=7KfeP8SHsp&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review