On Saturday 19 June 2010, Braden McDaniel wrote: > On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 15:04 -0500, Braden McDaniel wrote: > > I've put up this draft: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ArchSpecificRequir > > es > > > > Comments welcome. > > Well, this generated no comments. That, of course, must mean that the > proposal is perfect. 1) "A non-noarch subpackage's dependency on its main package" s/on its main package/on its main package or another subpackage/ 2) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package I suggest tweaking the examples to include the (epoch and) version and release for consistency with the above. 3) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Renaming.2Freplacing_existing_packages Because Provides are not ISA qualified by default, both ISA qualified and non- qualified Provides should be added where applicable and appropriate when replacing or splitting packages in order to not break dependencies. I suggest noting this both in this draft and the above NamingGuidelines entry. -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
