[Bug 469808] Review Request: pstreams-devel - POSIX Process Control in C++

[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=469808





--- Comment #20 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi>  2008-11-08 09:14:38 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> (In reply to comment #18)
> > According to the Package Naming Conventions, shouldn't this package be named
> > pstreams instead of pstreams-devel? The dash is a separator which shouldn't be
> > used in the base name of the package.
> 
> The naming guidelines demand that the dash[1] is used as a separator in the
> base name of packages and there are only some exceptions that allow to use the
> underscore instead. Also the review guidelines contain a MUST item that demands
> header files being in a -devel package:

Right.

> > Of course, pstreams should then provide pstreams-devel = %{version}-%{release}
> 
> What is the technical advantage of this? I would expect header files to be in a
> -devel package.

Well, the name confuses me a bit since I'd expect there to be a package named
pstreams. Of course, one can add Provides: pstreams to pstreams-devel as well.

> [1] some examples:
> bitmap-fonts
> bodhi-client
> bridge-utils

OK. Well, maybe it isn't as bad as I first thought: I find the following
packages in F9 Everything SRPMS with names containing -devel:

gnome-devel-docs
sblim-cmpi-devel
xorg-x11-proto-devel
xorg-x11-xtrans-devel

-- 
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.