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=618480 --- Comment #8 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <[email protected]> 2010-08-27 09:55:37 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) I had send question about license to upstream author (you in copy). > > > I think most -devel subpackage are arch-specfic because the location of > > > development libs(/usr/lib vs /usr/lib64). > > Hm, you are speak about unversioned *.so file(s)? May be... How it works > > till > > this time? > > Really, I'm not familiar in this question. Do you known when planning > > discuss > > about acceptance this draft? > > %{?_isa} is only useful for broken repo, using arch specfic requires for lib > package should be prefered because of the existence of multilib. You are not answered - do you known date when it planning to accept it draft by FESCO? Another question can it package correctly functional without %_isa macros, or this strongly required? -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
