Policy proposal for compatibility packages

[Les Mikesell]

Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating <jkeating <at> redhat.com> writes:
>> There is a difference between compatible library packages and
>> compatible development packages.  Compatible libraries make long term
>> sense.  Compat development packages don't.
> 
> By shipping libraries, even compat ones, without a -devel package, we'd be 
> advantaging proprietary apps over Free ones. :-(
> 

Change your terminology to 'pre-compiled' and 're-compiled' because it 
really doesn't relate to code being proprietary or not, only when it was 
compiled.  And then you also see why the -devel doesn't matter.

-- 
    Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell at gmail.com