On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:59:44PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > * Private unversiond libs in %{_libdir}. -- I would consider this a
> > blocker unless shown that they have to be there (and I would patch the
> > build scripts to fix this if necessary).
>
> Why is this a problem, assuming the name doesn't conflict with anything? (Of
> course a generic name like libparser.so would be a problem.)
>
* Organizationally -- I wouldn't want it there because it serves a wholly
different purpose.
* Naming-conflict wise, it's easier to tell people on review to move private
libs on review than to find out later that there's a conlict and then have
to get two maintainres to decide whether some of their libs are private,
who is responsible for moving their libraries, etc.
* For rpm, it adds unnecessary provides which are not only potential
conflicts but also add bloat to the repodata that users have to download.I suppose in strict answer to your question; not every reviewer would need consider this a blocker. But if I was reviewing a package, I would submit patches to make it use a private directory and expect that those patches would be applied for approval and its one of the things Id see if I was evaluating a reviewer and say, eh... I can see why you don't require that but it does make me feel you're a little more sloppy than otherwise. -Toshio
pgpOofW4JHjNX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
