https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356048 Antonio Trande <anto.trande@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #24 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #20) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > %package doc > > > > > Summary: Documentation files for rtlsdr-scanner > > > > > Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} > > > > > BuildArch: noarch > > > > > > > > > > Requires is the explicit dependency, i.e. you cannot install the doc > > > > > subpackage without the main package. > > > > > > > > Yes, I understand but why? :) > > > > > > Sorry, are you joking or what? > > > > -doc sub-package provides a PDF file only, it does not need base package. > > > > Just for example: > > > > 'gle-doc' (that contains PDFs and license) does not depend by 'gle' > > > > $ repoquery -l gle-doc > > /usr/share/doc/gle-doc > > /usr/share/doc/gle-doc/GLEusersguide.pdf > > /usr/share/doc/gle-doc/gle-manual.pdf > > /usr/share/licenses/gle-doc > > /usr/share/licenses/gle-doc/LICENSE.txt > > > > $ repoquery --requires gle-doc > > #No output > > Well, sorry I cannot imagine situation when you would need doc sub package > and not the main package, according to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines [1]: > > > Subpackages are often extensions for their base package and in that > > case they should require their base package. > > It's talking about extension of the package, not extension of the > functionality, so the documentation counts. You are interpreting guidelines in your favor. A generic "extension" like you think should be true in both directions (doc is an extension of base package and viceversa). Instead, an user could want install documentation without install software; if your interpretation was true, wouldn't be useful make a -doc sub-package. > > And from the Package Review Guidelines [2]: > > > SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package > > using a fully versioned dependency This example is inappropriate. > > I would recommend you reading the guidelines. > > [1] > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package > [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines Thank you for this tip. However, this is not a great problem. Package approved. -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx