On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:59:44PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > * Private unversiond libs in %{_libdir}. -- I would consider this a
> > blocker unless shown that they have to be there (and I would patch the
> > build scripts to fix this if necessary).
>
> Why is this a problem, assuming the name doesn't conflict with anything? (Of
> course a generic name like libparser.so would be a problem.)
>
* Organizationally -- I wouldn't want it there because it serves a wholly
different purpose.
* Naming-conflict wise, it's easier to tell people on review to move private
libs on review than to find out later that there's a conlict and then have
to get two maintainres to decide whether some of their libs are private,
who is responsible for moving their libraries, etc.
* For rpm, it adds unnecessary provides which are not only potential
conflicts but also add bloat to the repodata that users have to download.
I suppose in strict answer to your question; not every reviewer would need
consider this a blocker. But if I was reviewing a package, I would
submit patches to make it use a private directory and expect that those
patches would be applied for approval and its one of the things Id see if
I was evaluating a reviewer and say, eh... I can see why you don't require
that but it does make me feel you're a little more sloppy than otherwise.
-Toshio
Attachment:
pgpreBlsMcMN8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
