On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 12:06:23AM +0200, Erik van Pienbroek wrote: > While reviewing mingw32-gstreamer [1] I've stumbled upon a situation > where more feedback is appreciated. The packager has based this package > upon the native gstreamer package. While there's nothing wrong with that > approach I have my doubts whether some things are okay in respect to the > Fedora and Fedora-MinGW packaging guidelines. > > The native gstreamer package consists of a main package and two > subpackages, -devel and -tools. > > As no packages in the Fedora-MinGW toolchain have -devel subpackages > (everything is a library) the packager decided to comment out all the > -devel subpackage parts in the .spec file.
Hmm: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW/Packaging_issues#devel_package_split > While this makes the .spec > file harder to read the packager has indicated that he prefers to keep > the commented out parts for easier merging with native changes. Doesn't > this conflict with the Legibility-rule [2] in the Fedora packaging > guidelines? I'd say it's not great to keep all the commented out lines, but I wouldn't necessarily block the review for it. It depends on how much you trust the packager to do the right thing. > The -tools package contains just some .exe files. Are such packages > containing only binaries welcome in our Fedora-MinGW project? If so, is > it okay to put them in separate subpackages or should they be moved to > the main package? They're OK as long as they are development tools, and in this case they look like mostly development tools, so I would say this is OK. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones libguestfs lets you edit virtual machines. Supports shell scripting, bindings from many languages. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/libguestfs/ See what it can do: http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/libguestfs/recipes.html _______________________________________________ fedora-mingw mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-mingw
