https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867290 Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(petersen@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #1) > > Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} > > If possible, I would use the following the -devel subpackage instead: > Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} Yes > > %files > > %license LICENSE > Would it make sense to add the doc to the main package as well? My usual thinking on this is that most end-user consumers would not be interested. So for a library I usually only put them in the devel subpackage. > > %files devel > > %doc ChangeLog.md README.md > Same here for the license file? Worth adding? The devel package requires the base package so it should be superfluous. > > %changelog > > * Thu Aug 06 2020 Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> > > - initial packaging > > Missing package version and dist tag at the end of the changelog entry. Thanks, fixing > [?]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. (rpmbuild automatically generates the debuginfo subpackages. See eg https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=48908672) -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
