[Fedora-packaging] Documentation packages and explicit Requires

Mat Booth mat at matbooth.co.uk
Thu Jul 23 20:03:10 UTC 2015

On 23 July 2015 at 12:52, Michael Schwendt <mschwendt at gmail.com> wrote:

> After many years, there still is the occasional packager, who adds
> an explicit "Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}" to a noarch -doc
> subpackage which contains files one can display with any suitable program
> (such as PDF, HTML or TXT files).
> I don't know why they do it. The "Requiring Base Package" guidelines
> leave enough freedom to not do it and even mention -libs subpackages as one
> example where the base dep is not "needed":
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
> What do other packagers think about this?
> Can we please get rid of such bloat in plain Documentation packages?
> These dependencies pull in lots of stuff even if one only wants to peruse
> the documentation (e.g. when taking a brief look at an API or what an
> application can do).
> --
> packaging mailing list
> packaging at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

Totally agree. I seem to recall we removed the requirement for javadoc
packages a long time ago. The cases that still remain where a javadoc
package still requires its base package are likely to be low maintainance
packages that never need touching.

Mat Booth
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20150723/615a5a39/attachment.html>

More information about the packaging mailing list