[Bug 961419] Review Request: anet - Ada Networking Library

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961419

--- Comment #2 from Björn Persson <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> IMO I think there is no need to write Summary(sv) and %description devel -l
> sv %{common_description_sv} same as well.

The packaging guidelines allow it, and the review guidelines recommend it.

> Why not naming it to libanet?

The authors call it Anet almost everywhere. Except for the library file itself
and the symlink, whose filenames must start with "lib" for technical reasons,
only the tarball and the root directory inside it are called "libanet".
Otherwise it's "anet" in filenames: /usr/include/anet, /usr/lib/anet, anet.gpr,
anet.ads, anet.git et cetera. In prose it's generally "Anet", and "Ada
Networking Library" in a few places.

> Why not using %doc in files section to handle the docs?

Because I want the HTML documentation to be bookmarkable. %doc generates a
versioned directory name, so bookmarks would break on every update.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=enSAvekmlu&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]