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 #66 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) <kwizart@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-20 06:23:51 EDT --- Look at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428567#c17 The current package miss the etl_profile.h move into %{_libdir}/ETL and the related adds in ETL.pc (Cflags: -I${includedir} -I${libdir}/ETL) If ever the current ETL_HAS_ are the same with both arches on multilibs system, I would still prefer this solution since it will still be valid if others ETL_HAVE need to be introduced later. About the package name. One could say this is not a -devel but a -headers subpackage only, since it doesn't contain the symlink to a shared object. But -devel and -headers only exist when there is a "main" package also. (kernel-headers and kernel-devel exist because they are for a different usage than the kernel package itself.) Since there is no such "main" package, I think the current package is the main. In other words: >From one side, I don't see anything to override the Fedora guideline which tell to use the upstream source archive name as the "source" package name. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#General_Naming See also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428567#c31 On the other side, it remains possible for the ETL source package to only build an ETL-devel or ETL-headers package. (or to have only the ETL-%{version}-%{release}.src.rpm just build a plain ETL-%{version}-%{release}.%{_target_cpu}.rpm) (either using ETL-devel or ETL, the pkgconfig(ETL) provides will be properly extracted). -- 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