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=722707 --- Comment #7 from Kalev Lember <kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-07-18 04:32:38 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > Built packages should be named by prefixing the upstream package name with > mingw32- These are the binary rpms, upstream name (libvorbis) prefixed with mingw32-: mingw32-libvorbis-1.3.2-1.fc16.noarch.rpm mingw32-libvorbis-debuginfo-1.3.2-1.fc16.noarch.rpm > Source packages can be named starting with mingw- in order to more easily > support a transition to the new MinGW guidelines which mandate that naming. > Otherwise two separate package repositories must be set up ("mingw32-foo" and > "mingw-foo") with one needing to be marked EOL. This is the source package, starts with mingw- like the guidelines say: mingw-libvorbis-1.3.2-1.fc16.src.rpm The guidelines aren't particularly well worded here, but the idea is that in the future (F17 timeframe) we are going to build TWO sets of binary rpms from one source package, that's what the "support a transition to the new MinGW guidelines" sentence in guidelines means. mingw-libfoo.src.rpm mingw32-libfoo.rpm mingw64-libfoo.rpm -- 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