https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1111691 --- Comment #10 from David Nichols <david@xxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #8) > > %package doc > > Plus, documentation very often is not arch-specific, so a -doc subpackage > could be "BuildArch: noarch". In that case, an arch-specific dependency on a > library base package would not be possibly anyway. thanks, excellent tip, this was also done in revision 2 as in the links above. Also I finished running fedora-review on the updated SRPM and spec, and as far as I can see from that output the only thing left to resolve (besides what I hope are minor/acceptable rpmlint warnings) is the Provides: lines for the library ABIs. As I mentioned before, I'm not sure what to do about those without causing problems with older module RPMs. thanks, David -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review