Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428567 --- Comment #68 from Lubomir Rintel <lkund...@v3.sk> 2009-02-03 14:56:02 EDT --- (In reply to comment #66) > Look at > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428567#c17 > The current package miss the etl_profile.h move into %{_libdir}/ETL and the > related adds in ETL.pc (Cflags: -I${includedir} -I${libdir}/ETL) > If ever the current ETL_HAS_ are the same with both arches on multilibs > system, > I would still prefer this solution since it will still be valid if others > ETL_HAVE need to be introduced later. etl_profile.h can not be moved there, apart from it not being a good idea, FHS forbids that. In case the include files become arch-dependent (which is not likely anyways), the be renamed and a header that would include one depending on __WORD_SIZE will be in their original place. This is a common practice. > About the package name. One could say this is not a -devel but a -headers > subpackage only, since it doesn't contain the symlink to a shared object. > But -devel and -headers only exist when there is a "main" package also. > (kernel-headers and kernel-devel exist because they are for a different usage > than the kernel package itself.) > Since there is no such "main" package, I think the current package is the > main. > > In other words: > From one side, I don't see anything to override the Fedora guideline which > tell > to use the upstream source archive name as the "source" package name. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#General_Naming > See also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428567#c31 > > On the other side, it remains possible for the ETL source package to only > build > an ETL-devel or ETL-headers package. (or to have only the > ETL-%{version}-%{release}.src.rpm just build a plain > ETL-%{version}-%{release}.%{_target_cpu}.rpm) > > (either using ETL-devel or ETL, the pkgconfig(ETL) provides will be properly > extracted). When someone says "devel package", what comes to my mind is "useful for development", not "having a symlink to shared object" and I'd like to leave it that way. I think you see that this might be a matter of personal taste and doesn't violate guidelines, so I'm not going to change it unless there's a really serious objection. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
