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=618480 --- Comment #6 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <pahan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-08-27 08:59:18 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > (In reply to comment #3) > > > We should not add lib to the pkgname, see > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines#General_Naming > > It is doubtfull, but ok, it is not stop issue. > I'm sure we should not add lib to the name(e.g. glibc/qt/gtk). There are also many opposite examples: libsilc, libselinux-utils, http://www.silcnet.org/ and many others (rpm -qa 'lib*'). But I repeat, I do not insist on renaming if you argue. > All qtiplot specfic libs are under GPLv3, though the license header may be > GPLv2+/GPLv3+. > See http://soft.proindependent.com/serv/projects.html for a whole list Page contain only list of libraries it nothing say about licensing. > From guideline: > Fedora (as of F-10) does not require the presence of the BuildRoot tag in the > spec and if one is defined it will be ignored. The provided buildroot will > automatically be cleaned before commands in %install are called. > > So rm -rf %{buildroot} is not needed for %install. Ok, thank you. I'll try remember it. > I think most -devel subpackage are arch-specfic because the location of > development libs(/usr/lib vs /usr/lib64). Hm, you are speak about unversioned *.so file(s)? May be... How it works till this time? Really, I'm not familiar in this question. Do you known when planning discuss about acceptance this draft? -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review