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 #21 from Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-11-12 10:29:25 EDT --- (In reply to comment #20) > 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"). I believe that developers are used to installing a *-devel package and a *-doc package when they need them and therefore such a convenience package is of limited usefulness. So I'd drop the "poco" package completely and have the spec file produce only subpackages. The %description paragraph would have to be copied to every subpackage. And the MANIFEST file should not be packaged at all, it's of no use. On the other hand, such a convenience package does not break any guidelines, so if you really like to have it, I won't push for the change. > 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. Please no. That would be ugly. > The boost toplevel package depends only on binary subpackages which has little > meaning to either developers or users. Agreed. Please take a look at "rpm -q --changelog poco". You'll see macros got expanded there. Use %% to prevent macro expansion in the changelog. Or just avoid the % character completely. -- 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