https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985358 Ricky Elrod <relrod@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Ricky Elrod <relrod@xxxxxxxxxx> --- > As far as I know, doc subpackages depend on the real package which in turns Requires: ruby(rubygems). So adding rubygems to -doc isn't really needed. Am I wrong? That's a good point, I'm not sure why fedora-review didn't pick that up. I think it might be "ruby(rubygems)" vs just "rubygems", but I think either is fine. > I am not building for F18 at this point, but if you think it's better to support F18 as well, I guess I could make this change. If you're only planning on building for F19+, then it's fine as-is. If you decide to build for F18-, you'll need to change it. > As per the guidelines, this would be the case of an arch dependent package [0]. Since this is noarch I think the %{?_isa} doesn't apply. Correct me if I am wrong. That is correct and fedora-review bit again ;). https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package says "When a subpackage requires the base package, it must do so using a fully versioned arch-specific (for non-noarch packages) dependency: " I'll see if I can file a bug (or patch) on fedora-review to not give that error if the base package is noarch. > I don't understand how that applies to the spec. Could you please explain it? This error and the one below it seem to also be a result of fedora-review not seeing the "Requires: ruby(rubygems)". Sorry for not catching that. With that said, if you're only going to build for F19+, this looks fine and is APPROVED. -- 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=wqP9VPVTPS&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review