[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library

[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=428567





--- Comment #65 from Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak at v3.sk>  2009-01-13 14:31:19 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #64)
> ETL is an header-only package, why split in ETL and ETL-devel? I've been told
> that you can proceed either way but I think that having only ETL is better.

I don't split the package. The only binary (well, non-src) package that gets
built from this package is ETL-devel, there's no main package, since because
there's no %files section other than one for -devel subpackage.

Package guidelines suggest that packages with content like this should be in
-devel subpackage.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Devel_Packages

It could be argued that this package is exceptional, since it is only useful
for development, but I find it much more consistent to call it -devel. It is
only useful for development, not run-time and the -devel name makes is easily
distinguishable as such not only to the user, but also to the tools (such as
rpmdev-rmdevelrpms).

This is also more future-proof (for the unlikely cause it gains some library
code). It might be a good idea to provide ETL now though.

> By the way: are you a sponsored packager (I couldn't find you in the packager
> group). If not, you'll have to wait a sponsor to step in and review the
> package.

Yup, I am sponsored.
I believe you can view my groups there, and packager is among those:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/user/view/lkundrak

-- 
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.