https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1111691
--- Comment #10 from David Nichols <david(a)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
--
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