On Tue, 2017-03-14 at 22:55 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> The review is highly misleading, and the latest spec file does not
> include any headers in the package:
>
> %files
> %license COPYING
> %doc EXTENDING.html FAQ NEWS README
> %{_bindir}/arduino-ctags
> %{_mandir}/man1/arduino-ctags.1.gz
What do you find misleading about the review?
Yes, the spec doesn't include the headers - my question is whether it
should.
> > Is it OK to leave header files unpackaged for CLI applications?
>
> Yes, of course, if the headers aren't used by the application itself
> and not by anyone either. What sort of headers are they? What do they
> do? Do they need a library to link with? Question, questions!
They are the headers for the code in the binary itself. How could we
predict whether any user of this package might want to build another
program on top of this one that does link with this binary? Without the
headers this would not be possible (or at least not easy). I don't know
of anyone explicitly wanting to do this of course, and I suppose a bug
could always be filed requesting the headers if needed.
I'm more asking for clarification on what the packaging requirements
are since fedora-review's text seemed to suggest that the files are
required but I did not get that impression after reading the packaging
guidelines. Since I do not see requirements for these headers in the
guidelines I'm inclined to +1 the package, but I wanted to double check
with the list first.Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
