https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685 --- Comment #13 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> --- > But then if sylpheed is not there, then it will be pulled in even > if the user does not use the e-mailer, It would be perfectly imaginable to have the "sylpheed" src.rpm put libsylph files into separate "libsylph" and "libsylph-devel" subpackages. It would not be the first application package to split off a library like that. Just because that hasn't been done so far is no reason not to do it as soon as the first libsylph API users appear in the package collection. > Btw, my communication with Hiroyuki led me to believe that if > I had sylpheed installed as a binary, then I should use > --with-libsylph=builtin. That sounds unusual. If libsylph is available as a shared lib plus API headers, why not reuse it then? -- 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