[Fedora-packaging] Documentation packages and explicit Requires

Remi Collet Fedora at FamilleCollet.com
Sat Jul 25 12:04:30 UTC 2015

Le 23/07/2015 13:52, Michael Schwendt a écrit :
> 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?

Requiring Base package is not mandatory,
but providing the License in all case is mandatory.

So requiring the base package can solves this (and avoid having to
duplicate the LICENSE file in both packages).

It also ensure the documentation fit the installed base package
else you can have foo 1.2 and foo-doc 2.3


> 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

More information about the packaging mailing list