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=708765 --- Comment #33 from Mario Sanchez Prada <msanchez@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-06-03 08:47:51 EDT --- (In reply to comment #32) > I'm not sure I'd have made this build system change to frogr :) There are > plenty of projects building various helper libraries during the build, and then > linking everything together to generate the final binary. This is the most > convenient way of having separate directories when doing recursive builds with > automake, which was the norm until recently. Well, I'm not an expert on this matters but as frogr is a small application and not sure that this makes a big difference in terms of building it. However, if that helps Fedora packagers to be happier, then I'll be happier too, knowing that in the future the door to make flicksoup an independent library is still open. Anyway, reverting that commit is also a possibility in case we wanted to do it so. For the time being, and to avoid too much ping-pong with this, I'll leave it the way it is now: no libflicksoup.a file. > What I'd do would be to remove libflickrsoup from gitorious and to insist that > for now libflickrsoup is just an internal library private to frogr, which it > is. The day you decide to make libflickrsoup an actual library that you want to > support, you should be able to generate a git repository with full history > using git filter-branch. Done, and also changed the description in live.gnome.org/Frogr not to mention it. Hope now the FPC believes me when I say flicksoup is not an independently maintained library yet :-) -- 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