[Bug 226353] Merge Review: quota

[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 report.

Summary: Merge Review: quota


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226353





------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr  2008-01-25 16:08 EST -------
(In reply to comment #16)
> I get the impression that if quota-devel is made a virtual package, the real
> package will never happen.  Of course, the real quota-devel would require the
> main package anyway, so anyone installing -devel wouldn't notice.

There is no reason why a package containing solely
/usr/include/rpcsvc/rquota.h
/usr/include/rpcsvc/rquota.x
should require the main package. Once again it is not a library API.

> How would we move this header to the glibc package?  Unless I misunderstand,
> that sounds unnecessarily awkward.  I'm more in favor of the virtual package
route.

Headers without library are better in glibc, when they describe 
rpc services. I guess this implies discussing with glibc people.
Look at the files 
/usr/include/rpcsvc/*.x

> I'd be ok with the virtual package, but my preference is still the -devel
> subpackage.  I guess I'm having a hard time understanding your objection to
> that.  Sure, it's an extra package, but it's the same SRPM, and no real extra
> maintenance.  It would reduce bloat for end users, and have negligible effect on
> developers.

It is not a devel header like other devel headers that describes
an api. It describes rpc messages, and in my opinion the deserves
specific treatement.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.