Upstream the PackageKit-Qt library binding has been merged into the PackageKit scm and will be in the next release tarball. This allows us to keep the libraries in sync and also means QPackageKit gets a lot of the love that PackageKit gets. Love includes things like a .pc file, consistent so versioning, make check integration and also much better integration with upstream. Now we have two libraries (soon to be three), I'm intending to rename: PackageKit-libs -> PackageKit-libs-glib PackageKit-devel -> PackageKit-glib-devel This allows us to create PackageKit-libs-qt and PackageKit-qt-devel and then provide this for other QT and KDE applications to trivially build against. Does this conform to fedora naming conventions? I thought it was odd to have -libs-foo and -foo-devel (switched order) but am trying to copy convention from other frameworks in the repos. This will obsolete qpackagekit, and kpackagekit will have to be rebuilt against PackageKit-qt. This isn't a problem. kpackagekit is heading into kde svn soon too, as this will be the future long term home of the KDE bits. Comments and suggestions welcome. Thanks. Richard. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
