Should %{name}-javadoc package require %{name}?

[Ville Skyttä]

On Monday 08 March 2010, Chen Lei wrote:

> Requiring Base Package
> 
> Devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
> dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}. Usually,
> subpackages other than -devel should also require the base package using a
> fully versioned dependency.

It says "usually".  But anyway I think the main of this is that *if* the 
subpackage requires the main package in the first place, the dependency should 
usually be fully versioned; I don't think its intent is to encourage pulling 
artificial dependencies out of thin air.

By the way, the same applies to -devel packages so the "must" is a too strong 
expression for them although they usually actually do require the main 
package.  But when they don't, there is no reason to add any dependency to the 
main package, versioned or not.  (And yes, when they do, it's good to mandate 
the dependency to be fully versioned.)

Would not hurt to rephrase this in the guidelines to avoid confusion.