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=723752 Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |dledford@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #9 from Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx> 2012-02-08 14:31:12 EST --- I think I agree with Volker. This package is better suited as a lib* package. There are two conventions for libs to be multilib, one is to use foo-libs and the other is to use libfoo and to put the binaries in libfoo-utils or libfoo-examples or whatever is appropriate. The decision on which to use, IMO, is best decided by the usage of the package. If the libs themselves are the main goal and the primary use, then libfoo is to be preferred. If the binaries shipped are useful in their own right, and you are only separating the libs out so that other binaries might benefit from them in addition to the binaries you are shipping, then foo and foo-libs is preferred. So, like I said, multilib is still possible. The difference is that libfoo, the base package, requires nothing, while libfoo-utils or libfoo-examples does a Requires: libfoo = %{version}-%{release} and then you can install one or both versions of the libs, and whichever version of the utils you want. -- 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