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=473037 --- Comment #18 from Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-14 00:16:04 EDT --- (In reply to comment #17) > > I do not see why this would be bad here and ok with gcc? > > tinycc-devel.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > > Well, rpm -ql gcc and look at what gcc puts into /usr/lib/gcc (even on x86_64, > interestingly). All sorts of object files and libraries, along with some > headers. These are GCC internal files and in fact are host-arch-independent from GCC's POV (compile-time demands). The reasons they are in /usr/lib/gcc instead of /usr/share are widely historic (/usr/lib/<packagename> predates invention of /usr/share) and related to run-time demands (/usr/lib/gcc/<target>/... may contain run-time-used shared libs). > Look at what this package puts into /usr/lib/tcc: Some header files. IMO, this begs for more questions: * Is /usr/lib/libtcc.a located correctly? Should it be a generally applicable library (e.g. usable by GCC compiled files) then this location is likely correct. * Is /usr/include/libtcc.h located correctly? I doubt it. IMO, it should be a tcc internal header, tcc should implicitly pull in interally from some internal include file search path. -- 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