https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174408
--- Comment #3 from Vratislav Podzimek <vpodz...@redhat.com> ---
One generic reply:
I think this should be about the packaging issues not upstream (although it's
me as well) decisions/improvements. And as for the suggestions:
(In reply to Šimon Lukašík from comment #2)
> First couple of ideas:
> - There is no documentation for each plug-in. It is not the must for me,
> but it would be great to have a few words about each plug-in.
On my TODO list for future development. I plan to generate documentation with
gtk-doc for the library and all the plugins.
> - name of library: libbd, I am afraid to use libbd as library name. Light
> search on web for libdb gives some results. What do you think about possible
> collisions?
I only found libbd.dll which is a library that is a part of the Internet
Explorer. So no, I'm not afraid of the collisions here.
> - package name is libblockdev
> - lib name is bd.
No it's not. The library is libblockdev.so, just the plugins are libbd_lvm.so
and so on because libblockdev_lvm.so looks too long for me.
> - header files are in blockdev directory
Not an issue with proper documentation that will come soon, I think. And the
blockdev.pc file already has this information.
> I am not sure what can break if those are not consistent.
I'm not aware of anything.
> - Quoting the Fedora guidelines:
> In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require
> the base package using a fully versioned dependency:
> Requires: %{name}%{?_isa}
I believe all the -devel packages require their base packages as fully
versioned dependencies. Or is any missing it?
> - requires from libblockdev-plugins-all should imho also put the fully
> versioned dependency in. What if I want to install
> libblockdev-plugins-all.i686 on my box?
Good catch, thanks! Fixing.
> - spell-check says that metapackage is not word, 'meta-package' will do it.
And googlefight
(http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=meta-package&word2=metapackage)
agrees, fixing.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
