Request for review (round3): libxslt-plugin-regexp and libxslt-plugin-dates-and-time

[joel reed]

On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 09:33:48AM -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 09:19:54AM -0400, joel reed wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 04:41:33AM -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 01:53:48AM -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> > > > But anyways, fix what Tom and Brian have mentioned, *plus* you *still*
> > > > don't have ownership of %{_libdir}/libxslt. If you think that the
> > > > libxslt package should own it then file a bug. Until it does though, you
> > > > should.
> > > 
> > >   Hum, right. At the moment the libxslt package don't provide a placeholder
> > > for plugins. That should probably be added, my only minor point about just
> > >     %{_libdir}/libxslt
> > > is that it doesn't indicate it is for plugins or local packages. Maybe
> > >     %{_libdir}/libxslt/plugins or
> > >     %{_libdir}/libxslt-plugins
> > > I'm not sure what would be the best path/naming.
> > 
> > i like %{_libdir}/libxslt-plugins, but really either is fine. just
> > let me know what you decide!
> 
>   Go for %{_libdir}/libxslt-plugins, I don't expect to ever need other data
> in %{_libdir}/ at this point. libxslt-plugin-regexp should probably claim
> ownership of the directory as libxslt doesn't yet provide it, but I'm
> not positive about the packaging rules about this.

any experts on fedora-extras care to provide any additional guidance here?
is it ok for multiple packages to claim ownership of this dir? i don't see
anything regarding this in the rpm.org HOWTO.

jr

> 
> Daniel
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Desktop team http://redhat.com/
> veillard at redhat.com  | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
> http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/