https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174408 --- Comment #3 from Vratislav Podzimek <vpodzime@xxxxxxxxxx> --- One generic reply: I think this should be about the packaging issues not upstream (although it's me as well) decisions/improvements. And as for the suggestions: (In reply to Šimon Lukašík from comment #2) > First couple of ideas: > - There is no documentation for each plug-in. It is not the must for me, > but it would be great to have a few words about each plug-in. On my TODO list for future development. I plan to generate documentation with gtk-doc for the library and all the plugins. > - name of library: libbd, I am afraid to use libbd as library name. Light > search on web for libdb gives some results. What do you think about possible > collisions? I only found libbd.dll which is a library that is a part of the Internet Explorer. So no, I'm not afraid of the collisions here. > - package name is libblockdev > - lib name is bd. No it's not. The library is libblockdev.so, just the plugins are libbd_lvm.so and so on because libblockdev_lvm.so looks too long for me. > - header files are in blockdev directory Not an issue with proper documentation that will come soon, I think. And the blockdev.pc file already has this information. > I am not sure what can break if those are not consistent. I'm not aware of anything. > - Quoting the Fedora guidelines: > In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require > the base package using a fully versioned dependency: > Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} I believe all the -devel packages require their base packages as fully versioned dependencies. Or is any missing it? > - requires from libblockdev-plugins-all should imho also put the fully > versioned dependency in. What if I want to install > libblockdev-plugins-all.i686 on my box? Good catch, thanks! Fixing. > - spell-check says that metapackage is not word, 'meta-package' will do it. And googlefight (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=meta-package&word2=metapackage) agrees, fixing. -- 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