On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 14:04:30 +0200, Remi Collet wrote: > Requiring Base package is not mandatory, > but providing the License in all case is mandatory. > > So requiring the base package can solves this (and avoid having to > duplicate the LICENSE file in both packages). That's neglectable for -doc subpackages, which are split off because of their size. A single small license file doesn't make a big different then. > It also ensure the documentation fit the installed base package > else you can have foo 1.2 and foo-doc 2.3 Why would that be a problem? The documentation does not "need" the base package at install-time and not at run-time either. A strict dependency would even make it impossible to install the documentation without updating the installation. Btw, lots of dependencies in the Fedora package collection are not versioned anyway, so on non-updated installations, there can be various version mismatches (such as unsafe inter-dependencies based on automatic soname deps without symbol versioning -- one reason why some maintainers would like strictly versioned inter-dependencies everywhere). Adding them to -doc subpackages is the wrong place where to start. -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
