[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 #68 from Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak at v3.sk>  2009-02-03 14:56:02 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #66)
> 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.

etl_profile.h can not be moved there, apart from it not being a good idea, FHS
forbids that. In case the include files become arch-dependent (which is not
likely anyways), the be renamed and a header that would include one depending
on __WORD_SIZE will be in their original place. This is a common practice.

> 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).

When someone says "devel package", what comes to my mind is "useful for
development", not "having a symlink to shared object" and I'd like to leave it
that way. I think you see that this might be a matter of personal taste and
doesn't violate guidelines, so I'm not going to change it unless there's a
really serious objection.

-- 
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.