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 #7 from Chen Lei <supercyper1@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-08-27 09:19:21 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > (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*'). The tarballs for most lib* packages are also have lib prefix. Whether using lib or not should depend on the tarball name or the upstream name. > > 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. http://soft.proindependent.com/libqti/ http://soft.proindependent.com/qtexengine/licensing.html http://soft.proindependent.com/liborigin2/ > > 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? %{?_isa} is only useful for broken repo, using arch specfic requires for lib package should be prefered because of the existence of multilib. See rpm --eval %_isa -- 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