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=507083 --- Comment #20 from Maxim Udushlivy <udushlivy@xxxxxxx> 2009-11-11 16:55:21 EDT --- (In reply to comment #19) > Have you contacted upstream developers to discuss their bundling of libraries? > It would be nice if they could stop doing that or at least make it optional > with a ./configure settings. > Though it's not strictly necessary, it is a good idea to keep a live > relationship with upstream. If I recall correctly, somebody already asked POCO developers to do something about bundled libraries problem and there was a refusal. However, a good patch that adds an appropriate option to the "configure" script may change their minds. Such a patch may be written at some point in the future. > Your main package "poco" depends on "poco-devel". This is unusual and I don't > recommend it. You said Boost packaging was your inspiration when you separated > the package into several subpackages, but Boost does not do this. Unusual, but not without benefits. "poco" is a metapackage that helps the developer to install the whole toolkit at once, including headers ("poco-devel") and documentation ("poco-doc"). If this layout is not welcome, it may be reorganized: instead of "poco", "poco-devel" package becomes a new toplevel, not depending on "poco-doc". The name of the spec file will have to be "poco-devel.spec" in this case. The boost toplevel package depends only on binary subpackages which has little meaning to either developers or users. -- 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