https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2022554
--- Comment #8 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- I skipped copying out the full review template for this iteration. I see just two issues with the latest submission:
- Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
I think this will be OK in practice. My local mock build is release 2.fc36, so the -devel-doc subpackage Obsoletes the -devel package, and the -devel package Obsoletes itself. As long as the release number is correct, there shouldn’t be a problem.
I am not sure it is useful for the -devel package to explicitly Obsolete older versions of itself, although as far as I know it is not prohibited.
It does produce an rpmlint warning:
plotmm-devel.aarch64: W: self-obsoletion plotmm-devel < 0.1.2-35 obsoletes plotmm-devel = 0.1.2-2.fc36
- The HTML documentation is not actually installed; you only create an “html” directory, but do not copy any documentation into it.
I also noted:
- You could, if you like, omit “%license COPYING” in the devel-doc subpackage, since it on the base package indirectly via the devel subpackage.