https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1415190
Simone Caronni <negativ...@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |negativ...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org |negativ...@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Simone Caronni <negativ...@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Marcel Haerry from comment #0) > >> python2-onionbalance.noarch: W: no-documentation > >> python2-onionbalance.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary onionbalance-py2 > >> python2-onionbalance.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary > >> onionbalance-config-py2 > > this is by intend, as the python3 package contains all the documentation and > manpages. I wasn't sure whether this is the right way to package the python2 > variant of the service. Can you make the package conditionally add the manpages to the "base" package depending on the distribution? Python 2 is the default on all supported distributions so far. And in the EPEL 7 build the man pages are not there. Have you tried to put man pages into both packages? Man pages are considered documentation and they show up with "rpm -qd <package>". If they are identical while installing I think the packages will not complain. $ rpm -qf /usr/share/doc/glibc glibc-2.24-4.fc25.x86_64 glibc-2.24-4.fc25.i686 If you are unsure maybe ask on the mailing list? The only thing that I see that is wrong in the package is the license field. It's not BSD but GPLv3: https://github.com/DonnchaC/onionbalance/blob/develop/COPYING -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org