On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 10:27:05 -0700, Denis Leroy wrote: > Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 07:14:10 -0400, Build System wrote: > > > > > >>New package libsigc++ > >> The Typesafe Signal Framework for C++. > > > > > >>* Wed Oct 19 2005 Caolan McNamara <caolanm@xxxxxxxxxx> 2.0.16-1 > >>- the return of libsigc++ > >> > >>* Wed Jan 09 2002 Tim Powers <timp@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>- automated rebuild > > > > > > Ouch! :( > > > > Please note that it has been part of Fedora Extras for a long time. > > We don't ignore Fedora Extras, do we? > > Yes, this is unfortunate. Also, it would not be a good idea to have > libsigc++ in core and gtkmm in extras. I think you really want the same > person to be maintaining those, and they need to be upgraded at the same > time. > > Was there a specific reason to add it to core ? > > -denis, sigC++/gtkmm extras maintainer > Adding to that, the package currently conflicts with libsigc++20 from Extras since it upgrades the older one for the older API, which we've kept as libsigc++. It is based on an old package from Red Hat Linux, which has flaws. It owns /usr/share/doc, contains libsigc-2.0.so in the wrong package, contains duplicates of the %doc files from the main package in the -devel package, should require pkgconfig in the -devel package, and moves the html docs to a different directory. A copy of the GPL ought to be included also in the Extras package, btw. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
