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=542765 --- Comment #5 from Christian Krause <c...@plauener.de> 2010-03-30 03:49:19 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > Sorry about the delay - I now have some time to work on these packages. > > naming - I thought there was some fedora requirement that .so objects be in > -lib subpackages. > > data - as a separate package, that is arch-independent, which we lose if > placed > in the main package. No, this is not necessary and not intended: - if the package contains only a library, then the *.so.* files go into the base package which name matches the upstream tarball - exception: if the package contains a library and e.g. a binary which uses the library and if this library may be also used by other packages then it is justified to create a -libs package (see e.g. tcp_wrappers, tcp_wrappers-libs) - if the arch-independent data is needed for the base package, then it should not be separated (and for sure the COPYING file should never be separated from the binaries) - in general: separate files into sub-packages only in case it is necessary, reasons could be: * the situation with the libraries as described above * very large documentation * additional data which is not really needed for the base package (e.g. additional levels for a game) * -devel The main reasons is to save same disk space for people who don't need the additional files. So in case of this package, all files should go into the base package (no -libs, no -data) besides the devel files which are already correct in the -devel package. -- 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 package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
