https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403417
--- Comment #27 from Michael Schwendt <[email protected]> --- > --> License file is installed as part of the gsequencer package. > -devel package has versioned requires for the base packages. > > However, -devel-doc does not depend on -devel or the base package. > As far as I can tell, -devel-doc should also have versioned requires. No. Preferably, -doc packages are kept free of superfluous dependencies, so one can install a documentation package for evaluation purposes without dragging in -devel packages and possible tons of deps. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing > Generic: > [?]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package > is arched. > Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 10199040 bytes in /usr/share > See: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines > > ---> you may want to consider if it's appropriate to move the html docs to > -doc subpackage. I do not really have a preference. That's not what fedora-review is trying to point out here. The total size of files in arch-ed rpms it refers to is mostly because of the files in the -devel-doc package. Making that one "noarch" would be the obvious solution. > gsequencer.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib64/gsequencer/libgsequencer.so > > ---> This seems to be a symlink to a versioned library. The symlink is unimportant. Important is that these libs are stored in a directory outside runtime linker's default search path. -- 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 -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
