https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864 --- Comment #3 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Dave Love from comment #1) > I've just been doing it; never mind. > > Would you accept a patch for EPEL6? Of course. I'll most likely keep it in that branch only, though. > I can't find any packaging rules about library names, but wouldn't it be > better to call it libelpa? If nothing else it helps things like rpmorphan. Upstream calls it ELPA. The naming (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines) guidelines don't mandate any lib* prefix for libraries and suggest using upstream naming. > It would probably be useful to package versions with other optimizations, > like sandybridge in our case, but I wasn't sure how best to do it and > couldn't find any examples. I wonder if there should be a policy on that. atlas and qtwebkit do something like that, for example, but only for i686 with and without SSE2 support. Unfortunately, hwcap support is completely undocumented (see my 6 year old bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7100) and no hwcaps are defined on x86_64 (check /usr/include/bits/hwcap.h on your system). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review