On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 08:45 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 15:25 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 15:19 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > > Le Mar 5 septembre 2006 12:43, Alexander Larsson a écrit :
> > > > On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 13:02 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Perhaps in the case of mono, where the main package has no difference
> > > >> between the runtime and the development files (one in the same) then
> > > >> the .pc file can stay in the main package. I'm OK with that.
> > > >
> > > > So, can we change the packaging guidelines to say this? (Otherwise I'll
> > > > be flooded with more bug reports.)
> > >
> > > Even if a language does not distinguish between runtime and build files,
> > > you may still have to pull stuff used only for building (compiler, tools
> > > for %check, i18n, etc)
> >
> > We don't require gcc or binutils in every package that includes a .pc
> > file, do we?
>
> You all realize that the amount of time spent on this thread so far is
> about 10x greater than it would have been to just fix the packages to
> match the policy, right?
Even less time would have been spent if the already well functioning
packages didn't get bugs filed against them and lots of imho unnecessary
churn. That doesn't make it right.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Alexander Larsson Red Hat, Inc
alexl@xxxxxxxxxx alla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
He's an immortal neurotic master criminal with a mysterious suitcase
handcuffed to his arm. She's a time-travelling impetuous mermaid on her way to
prison for a murder she didn't commit. They fight crime!
--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
--
Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list
Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
