https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221781 Richard Shaw <hobbes1069@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(hobbes1069@gmail. | |com) | --- Comment #20 from Richard Shaw <hobbes1069@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #18) > (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #17) > … > > > => use of %doc with relative paths and installation of files directly into > > > %_pkgdocdir in the same source package is forbidden. > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation > > > > This needs to be better explained in the guidelines. Many packages install > > documentation as part of "make install" but %doc is still used to pull in > > the usual suspects, COPYING, README, ChangeLog, etc. > > > > I may post a question to the development mailing list to get clarification. > > You can not use %doc here, either ask upstream to enhance the Makefile or > use install -p commands in spec file. Fixed. > > > zipios-doc.noarch: E: devel-dependency zipios-devel > > > => Please fix. > > > > I think this one can safely be ignored. The -doc package only contains > > documentation relevant to development, so it is actually a devel package, > > but rpmlint doesn't have a way of knowing this. > > Please merge the doc package into devel. I do not see any reason why it's to > be separate when there's the devel intention only. The point of separating them is that you shouldn't have to download the extra 3.3MB of documentation when all you want is a build requirement. I have tried calling the package %{name}-devel-doc in the past but other reviewers didn't like that idea. -- 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