https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1111691
--- Comment #10 from David Nichols david@qore.org --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #8)
%package doc
Plus, documentation very often is not arch-specific, so a -doc subpackage could be "BuildArch: noarch". In that case, an arch-specific dependency on a library base package would not be possibly anyway.
thanks, excellent tip, this was also done in revision 2 as in the links above.
Also I finished running fedora-review on the updated SRPM and spec, and as far as I can see from that output the only thing left to resolve (besides what I hope are minor/acceptable rpmlint warnings) is the Provides: lines for the library ABIs. As I mentioned before, I'm not sure what to do about those without causing problems with older module RPMs.
thanks, David