https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 --- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Thibault North from comment #2) > About that, why are the files duplicated in this case? I don't remember > having met this issue in the past. Because %doc includes everything in %{_pkgdocdir} automatically. BTW, the proper way to refer to %{docdir}/%{name} is through %{_pkgdocdir}. > I also tried this: > > [...] > mkdir -p ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_docdir}/%{name}/bench > cp -pr bench/plot-speeds.py* ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_docdir}/%{name}/bench > cp -pr bench/*.c ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_docdir}/%{name}/bench > [...] > > %global _docdir_fmt %{name} > > %files > %doc README.rst ANNOUNCE.rst RELEASE_NOTES.rst README_HEADER.rst > README_THREADED.rst RELEASING.rst > %{_libdir}/libblosc.so.* > > %files devel > %{_libdir}/libblosc.so > %{_includedir}/blosc.h > %{_docdir}/%{name}/bench/plot-speeds.py* > %{_docdir}/%{name}/bench/*.c > > It is a bit ugly, but keeps the bench/ directory. But again, the main > package inherits from the bench/ folder. So, I think that this is not OK. I found two solutions which seem to work: a) add %exclude %{_pkgdocdir}/bench in %files b) remove unwanted files from bench/ in %build, and then simply add '%doc bench' in %files devel, without installing anything by hand. Both of those solutions remove duplicates and preserve the /bench/ in path. But I think that a different solution is actually better: c) simply install a compiled version of 'bench'. I think this is better because as a user, I don't want to have to find out how to compile the .c file to run the benchmarks, I would prefer to be able to invoke it directly. I have now run bench myself, and I think it would be worthwhile to package, because the results are quite interesting, and relevant to how one would use blosc. There's a problem that making the bench binary and the associated plot-times.py script part of either of the two binary packages is problematic. If it is moved into the main package, it would start requiring python, and x86_64 versions would nod be co-installable. If is is installed as part of the -devel package, again, -devel would require python, and also not be coinstallable. I think that adding a -bench (or -test) package is the best option, with /usr/bin/blosc-bench and /usr/bin/blosc-plot-times. > > The -devel package requires: > > > > blosc = 1.2.3-2.fc20 > > libblosc.so.1.2.3()(64bit) > > > Those are duplicates, so > > Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} > > can be removed. > > Shouldn't there be an explicit require, according to > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/ > Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package ? > Otherwise, rpmlint complains. You're right. But then the Requires should be more exact: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} So, whatever you decide wrt. the %files problem, please post a new .spec. As a reviewer, I don't think I should impose my view here, and you should pick whatever you think best from the maintainer point of view. -- 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