[Fedora-packaging] Documentation packages and explicit Requires

Michael Schwendt mschwendt at gmail.com
Sat Jul 25 19:10:37 UTC 2015

On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 14:04:30 +0200, Remi Collet wrote:

> 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).

That's neglectable for -doc subpackages, which are split off because
of their size. A single small license file doesn't make a big different

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

Why would that be a problem?

The documentation does not "need" the base package at install-time
and not at run-time either.

A strict dependency would even make it impossible to install the
documentation without updating the installation.

Btw, lots of dependencies in the Fedora package collection are not
versioned anyway, so on non-updated installations, there can be various
version mismatches (such as unsafe inter-dependencies based on automatic
soname deps without symbol versioning -- one reason why some maintainers
would like strictly versioned inter-dependencies everywhere). Adding them
to -doc subpackages is the wrong place where to start.

More information about the packaging mailing list