[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 #66 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) <kwizart at gmail.com>  2009-01-20 06:23:51 EDT ---
Look at 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428567#c17
The current package miss the etl_profile.h move into %{_libdir}/ETL and the
related adds in ETL.pc (Cflags: -I${includedir} -I${libdir}/ETL)
If ever the current ETL_HAS_ are the same with both arches on multilibs system,
I would still prefer this solution since it will still be valid if others
ETL_HAVE need to be introduced later.

About the package name. One could say this is not a -devel but a -headers
subpackage only, since it doesn't contain the symlink to a shared object.
But -devel and -headers only exist when there is a "main" package also.
(kernel-headers and kernel-devel exist because they are for a different usage
than the kernel package itself.)
Since there is no such "main" package, I think the current package is the main.

In other words:
>From one side, I don't see anything to override the Fedora guideline which tell
to use the upstream source archive name as the "source" package name.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#General_Naming
See also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428567#c31

On the other side, it remains possible for the ETL source package to only build
an ETL-devel or ETL-headers package. (or to have only the
ETL-%{version}-%{release}.src.rpm just build a plain
ETL-%{version}-%{release}.%{_target_cpu}.rpm)

(either using ETL-devel or ETL, the pkgconfig(ETL) provides will be properly
extracted).

-- 
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.