https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867290
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(petersen@redhat.c | |om) |
--- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #1)
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
If possible, I would use the following the -devel subpackage instead: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Yes
%files %license LICENSE
Would it make sense to add the doc to the main package as well?
My usual thinking on this is that most end-user consumers would not be interested. So for a library I usually only put them in the devel subpackage.
%files devel %doc ChangeLog.md README.md
Same here for the license file? Worth adding?
The devel package requires the base package so it should be superfluous.
%changelog
- Thu Aug 06 2020 Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com
- initial packaging
Missing package version and dist tag at the end of the changelog entry.
Thanks, fixing
[?]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
(rpmbuild automatically generates the debuginfo subpackages. See eg https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=48908672)