https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979124
--- Comment #3 from Erik Schilling <ablu.erikschill...@googlemail.com> --- Hi, > This is the name of the software and not a helpful summary From the link you gave me: [...] For some packages it may be helpful to expand the package name that is an acronym, e.g. for the package "gimp", the summary could be "GNU Image Manipulation Program". [...] This looks exactly like what I am doing. I also have no idea how i could summarize this package better than this. (But I am open for suggestions). > How much has this been reviewed already? Sorry I am a rather new and not very active packager. I did not read a lot of reviews (and never did one myself). I only looked at other packages (qt-creator in this case) and copied that over from there. I will look into the process and fix it. > It's also less than ideal to include the license terms only in the optional > -doc package instead of the base package. Hm. I thought %doc would do exactly that. I did not know that it only puts it into the -doc package (I also was unable to find any documentation about this right now :/). Can i somehow do %doc for a specific subpackage? (the main package)? > * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package What do you mean with this? Shall I require the base package from the doc subpackage too? > * > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories Hm. Could you give some info on this? What do I do wrong? Should the main package maybe own %{_datadir}/%{name}/modules/? Would be good if you could give some context. > A lot of fragmentation and tiny subpackages for no gain, IMO. Notice how the > base package contains other parts for C++ and Qt support (e.g. plugins). This > is somewhat half-hearted and certainly could be improved. Eeh. Somehow did not notice that. The plugins of course should be owned by the subpackages. > The -cpp and -qt subpackages don't even add any dependencies. Sorry I do not understand. What kind of depedencies do you expect? They depend on the main package. And that should be the only thing they need to depend on if i see it right? > The -doc subpackage doesn't include the HTML documentation it advertizes. Right. I first worked with a different patch applied for this. That patch got merged into upstream then. However they apparently do not install the docs this way anymore. Another thing i just realized. doc should probably be noarch, right? Thanks a lot for your first glance and have a nice remaining weekend, Erik -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=YtJFdcKw0x&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
