https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366784 Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(jskarvad@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #4 from Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jan Včelák from comment #3) Sorry for delay, I was sick. > What exactly is missing? The package doesn't depend on any library. You should probably list gcc and all other build deps, according to the: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRequires_2 You can only rely that there is a functional RPM and the shell in the build root. This was changed in the guidelines and there is now no "safe defaults in the buildroot", but I am a bit relaxed about this requirement. > > [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in > > mpdecimal-doc , mpdecimal-debuginfo > > > > I think the doc subpackage should require the base package, this will also > > resolve the problem with the license file installation. > > I would like to keep the packages independent. It's just documentation. You > don't need the library or headers to read it. > I think it's a bit useless to install documentation without the library, but I have no problem with it. > I've also added the bundled(js-*) provides for the doc subpackage. > Unversioned though, hope that's OK. I think it would be needless effort to > make sure the versions didn't change during the update. I think the main reason of the bundled keyword is to track the security related problems with the bundled libs. Without version it's impossible to track it. However, I think that local documentation may pose little or none risk, so probably the bundled keywords are not needed in this case. IIRC in the past each bundled keyword required FESCO exception, but currently I cannot find anything about it in the guidelines, so probably this requirement has been dropped. > Update SPEC: > https://jvcelak.fedorapeople.org/review/mpdecimal/2.4.2-3/mpdecimal.spec > I would probably enforce unversioned docdir on > RHEL-7 and Fedora if there is no _pkgdocdir macro, e.g.: %if 0%{?rhel} <= 7 && 0%{!?fedora:1} {!?_pkgdocdir: %global _pkgdocdir %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}} %else {!?_pkgdocdir: %global _pkgdocdir %{_docdir}/%{name}} %endif or similarly. -- 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