Am Samstag, den 21.10.2006, 18:27 +0200 schrieb Michael Schwendt: > On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:23:46 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > On Sat, 2006-10-21 at 16:20 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote: > > > Am Samstag, den 21.10.2006, 16:08 +0200 schrieb Patrice Dumas: > > > > On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 03:42:41PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > But I doubt this doesn't make much sense for symlinks, does it? > > > > > > > > It makes only sense for symlinks... > > > > > > Yeah, sorry, I know. What i wanted to ask is: Do we really need a devel > > > package for these two symlinks. I read your answer an a "yes". > > > > If these libs are libraries: yes, definitely. > > Where's the API then? > > Unless I misread Christoph's question, there are _only_ two symlinks, > but not headers. In that case, something is broken terribly. > > In case this is a library without a public API, it doesn't make sense > to put the .so symlinks into a separate -devel package. It must be examined > whether the .so "names" are needed at run-time, e.g. for dlopen. > > So, what package is this about? It's from the hylafax review, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188542 Christoph -- Please do not send private messages to this address, it is not being monitored. Bitte keine persönlichen Nachrichten an diese Adresse senden, sie wird nicht überwacht. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
