Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428567 --- Comment #65 from Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@xxxxx> 2009-01-13 14:31:19 EDT --- (In reply to comment #64) > ETL is an header-only package, why split in ETL and ETL-devel? I've been told > that you can proceed either way but I think that having only ETL is better. I don't split the package. The only binary (well, non-src) package that gets built from this package is ETL-devel, there's no main package, since because there's no %files section other than one for -devel subpackage. Package guidelines suggest that packages with content like this should be in -devel subpackage. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Devel_Packages It could be argued that this package is exceptional, since it is only useful for development, but I find it much more consistent to call it -devel. It is only useful for development, not run-time and the -devel name makes is easily distinguishable as such not only to the user, but also to the tools (such as rpmdev-rmdevelrpms). This is also more future-proof (for the unlikely cause it gains some library code). It might be a good idea to provide ETL now though. > By the way: are you a sponsored packager (I couldn't find you in the packager > group). If not, you'll have to wait a sponsor to step in and review the > package. Yup, I am sponsored. I believe you can view my groups there, and packager is among those: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/user/view/lkundrak -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review