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=476600 --- Comment #8 from Conrad Meyer <konrad@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-29 22:11:40 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) > I guess that depends on what upstreams purpose with the files is? Are they > installed on purpose or is it an oversight? > > FWIW I can't imagine any reasons why .c files should be included in any > package. Theoretically it could perhaps make sense to expose the C code as a C > library and put the .h files in a -devel package, but I don't think that is > upstreams intention. Agree. I think it's just upstream being braindead (Zope does some unintelligent things). Re: Putting the 3 other modules in some subdirectory: > It _could_ be done in the ZODB module simply by inserting the right path in > sys.path before importing - or by manipulating sys.modules. But I don't know if > I would propose doing it in a Fedora patch. > > I think we need input from upstream if they see it as one module or as 4 > modules each on their own right. In either case it could be nice if they > distributed it in a way which matched their intention. I agree. I've sent an email to upstream asking for clarification on this. -- 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