https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979124
--- Comment #4 from Michael Schwendt mschwendt@gmail.com ---
From the link you gave me:
Examples, not mandatory, some of them are debatable, too. ;)
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".
"Image manipulation program" would be sufficient. The description could expand on the "GNU" part in the name and whether/why it matters.
This looks exactly like what I am doing.
I didn't say the current %summary would be a blocker. But could it be improved? That might be difficult. The program is not specific to "Qt", so why mention Qt in the summary at all?
What about these two?
Next-generation build system for projects Build suite from the Qt Project Simplify the build process for developing projects across multiple platforms
Roughly copied from: http://doc-snapshot.qt-project.org/qbs/
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 :/).
The %doc macro is specific to the %files section you use it within, and what it does depends on the type of file path you apply it to: http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-inside-files-list-directives.html
What do you mean with this?
You currently do
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
in the subpackages, but the guidelines suggest you do
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
to make those dependencies arch-specific.
Shall I require the base package from the doc subpackage too?
No. Separate documentation -doc packages typically don't require the base package. It should be possible to install documentation without having to install a program and all its dependencies.
Hm. Could you give some info on this? What do I do wrong?
Should the main package maybe own %{_datadir}/%{name}/modules/?
You're on the right track. :-) There are several "unowned" directories in your package. They are easy to spot in the spec file or when listing the package contents with e.g. "rpmls -p …" or "rpm -qlp …".
The -cpp and -qt subpackages don't even add any dependencies.
Sorry I do not understand.
Why do you put those files into separate (= optional) packages at all? Why not include those files in the main "qbs" package? What is the benefit of splitting them off?
What kind of depedencies do you expect?
Well, I don't understand why you split off those files. A query such as
rpm -qpR qbs-cpp-1.0.1-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm
currently does not list any requirement not already required by the base package.
Another thing i just realized. doc should probably be noarch, right?
Good idea.