https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949895 Honza Horak <hhorak@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bkabrda@xxxxxxxxxx Flags| |needinfo?(bkabrda@xxxxxxxxx | |m) --- Comment #7 from Honza Horak <hhorak@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jan Staněk from comment #6) > (In reply to Honza Horak from comment #5) > > - packaging header file /usr/include/python3.3m/bsddb3/bsddb.h is not > > necessary IMHO. Or is there any reason to do so? > > It is probably not necessary, however it is installed by the upstream setup > script. Of course I can remove it, but since upstream decided to ship it, I > think it should stay there, to be as close to the upstream version as > possible. Staying close to upstream is generally good approach, especially when speaking about functionality/features. But I wouldn't take it too strict when speaking about content of RPMs. Removing unneeded stuff from RPM payload is quite common thing. Anyway, I'm not Python expert, but since no other module seems to do the same, I'd say it is pointless: $ repoquery --whatprovides --archlist='x86_64,noarch' '*/usr/include/python3.3m/*.h' python3-devel-0:3.3.2-6.fc19.x86_64 python3-libs-0:3.3.2-2.fc19.x86_64 python3-libs-0:3.3.2-6.fc19.x86_64 python3-devel-0:3.3.2-2.fc19.x86_64 python3-sip-devel-0:4.14.6-1.fc19.x86_64 However, let's ask Python guru, what he things about packaging /usr/include/python3.3m/bsddb3/bsddb.h file. Slavku, can you express your POV? -- 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=hKEKI8eFUM&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review