[Bug 168339] Review Request: libbinio

Tom 'spot' Callaway tcallawa at redhat.com
Fri Sep 16 15:30:14 UTC 2005

On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 12:50 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 06:33 -0400, bugzilla at redhat.com wrote:
> > ------- Additional Comments From triad at df.lth.se  2005-09-16 06:33 EST -------
> > OK so how are these disputes normally resolved?
> > 
> > I have no problem with doing what Ralf says, because the package that
> > I am creating to use libbinio do not complain about having its headers
> > in /include/binio so that is OK with me.
> > Ralf says he will veto against this package unless I do so, so Ville,
> Not quite, I said, I will not approve _any_ package which installs its
> headers to /usr/include and that I am _considering_ to veto against this
> package.

Right now, it is not a MUST that header files live in
%{_includedir}/%{name}. Technically, its not even a SHOULD. 

I'd tend to agree with Ralf on the idea, as header names are often
extremely generic. I'd prefer that upstream make this move, but I don't
want to discourage a packager from using their own best judgement.

Basically, as the policies stand right now, since this is not a
requirement, choosing whether or not to store headers in
%{_includedir}/%{name} is up to the packager's discretion.

However, I highly suggest that you contact upstream, and suggest
(possibly with patch at the ready) that they make such a configuration
the default.

Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!

More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list