https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979124
--- Comment #3 from Erik Schilling <ablu.erikschilling(a)googlemail.com> ---
Hi,
This is the name of the software and not a helpful summary
From the link you gave me:
[...]
For some
packages it may be helpful to expand the package name that is an
acronym, e.g. for the package "gimp", the summary could be "GNU Image
Manipulation Program".
[...]
This looks exactly like what I am doing. I also have no idea how i could
summarize this package better than this. (But I am open for suggestions).
How much has this been reviewed already?
Sorry I am a rather new and not very active packager. I did not read a lot of
reviews (and never did one myself). I only looked at other packages (qt-creator
in this case) and copied that over from there.
I will look into the process and fix it.
It's also less than ideal to include the license terms only in
the optional -doc package instead of the base package.
Hm. I thought %doc would do
exactly that. I did not know that it only puts it
into the -doc package (I also was unable to find any documentation about this
right now :/). Can i somehow do %doc for a specific subpackage? (the main
package)?
What do you mean with this?
Shall I require the base package from the doc subpackage too?
Hm. Could you give
some info on this? What do I do wrong?
Should the main package maybe own %{_datadir}/%{name}/modules/?
Would be good if you could give some context.
A lot of fragmentation and tiny subpackages for no gain, IMO. Notice
how the base package contains other parts for C++ and Qt support (e.g. plugins). This is
somewhat half-hearted and certainly could be improved.
Eeh. Somehow did not notice
that. The plugins of course should be owned by the
subpackages.
The -cpp and -qt subpackages don't even add any dependencies.
Sorry I do not understand. What kind of depedencies do you expect? They depend
on the main package. And that should be the only thing they need to depend on
if i see it right?
The -doc subpackage doesn't include the HTML documentation it
advertizes.
Right. I first worked with a different patch applied for this. That
patch got
merged into upstream then. However they apparently do not install the docs this
way anymore.
Another thing i just realized. doc should probably be noarch, right?
Thanks a lot for your first glance and have a nice remaining weekend,
Erik
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=YtJFdcKw0x&a=cc_unsubscribe