https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246903 --- Comment #10 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> --- I've sent a mail to packaging@ list to seek clarification. It's not pretty that there are filesystem packages in disguise, such as hicolor-icon-theme. And there used to be others, too. The guidelines still mention "man", which is gone meanwhile. I don't think all filesystem packages must end with -filesystem in their name. If that's a strict requirement for them to be named like that, the guidelines ought to be fixed. It's only gnome-shell-extension-background-logo that doesn't require gnome-shell-extension-common. All other extensions depend on that filesystem package. And yes, I wish the guidelines were more clear. [...] > For the file triggers: does it mean I have to distinct between > different versions of Fedora in the spec-file or use a different > spec-file for rawhide ? Using conditionals would be convenient, if you plan to use the same spec for multiple dist releases: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag#Conditionals I think the implicit/automatic dependency on glib2 via gnome-shell is sufficient. If adding a temporary explicit dependency on glib2 -- as mentioned in the mail to desktop@ list -- it cannot be arch-specific, of course. But depsolvers usually do the right thing and, for example, would not pull in glib2.i686 on x86_64 (unless they run into unresolvable deps). [...] > dnf list gnome-shell-extension* Of course. I've sent a message to desktop@ list. -- 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