https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972568 --- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng <cickumqt@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #5) > Which would make sense. Just IMHO, and I recommend that for library-less > -devel packages so they are like all other -devel packages. However, kindly > refer to bug 798438 comment 9. The FPC finds it acceptable, if library-less > development packages (no matter whether they contain only headers or also > tools) would not be named -devel but used the base package for including > their files. As such, building just uthash.noarch from uthash.src.rpm would > be okay, although enough packagers would prefer the uthash-devel.noarch > style. Yes, I've seen this review before packaging uthash. I dislike packages only named -devel, but no main package existed. -- 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=AnAx8znQHd&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review