Austin Acton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip: other icon method]
> I don't see how that's any worse than one tarball. While it is longer, > I don't think clarity should take a back-seat to brevity. You are absolutely right but on the other hand there is nothing bad about the one archive method. It comes down to flavor. So in the end it's rather trivial. > Also, the skeleton should definitely include lib-stuff. %define > libname lib%name%major and all the rest (descriptions, file-lists, > depends, etc.) Not only does this clarify the lib policy, but the > packager doesn't have to figure out the depends/provides for the > libs which was VERY confusing for me at first, and is the same 90% > of the time. That is a good idea indeed. But... They are different kind of packages actually. I will make another skel.spec for it. lib-skel.spec :) IMHO the lib/lib-devel seperating of rpm is rather clumsy. Ports for example puts everything in one package. And lib-files are not removed if you uninstall a package. Much more intuitive, but thats a whole other story. # Han -- http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/software
