[Bug 469808] Review Request: pstreams-devel - POSIX Process Control in C++

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=469808





--- Comment #19 from Till Maas <opensource at till.name>  2008-11-08 08:47:00 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> According to the Package Naming Conventions, shouldn't this package be named
> pstreams instead of pstreams-devel? The dash is a separator which shouldn't be
> used in the base name of the package.

The naming guidelines demand that the dash[1] is used as a separator in the
base name of packages and there are only some exceptions that allow to use the
underscore instead. Also the review guidelines contain a MUST item that demands
header files being in a -devel package:

- MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.

Btw. debian also uses their devel naming scheme for pstreams:
http://packages.debian.org/sid/libpstreams-dev


> Of course, pstreams should then provide pstreams-devel = %{version}-%{release}

What is the technical advantage of this? I would expect header files to be in a
-devel package.


[1] some examples:
bitmap-fonts
bodhi-client
bridge-utils

-- 
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.