Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: avr-libc - C library for use with GCC on Atmel AVR microcontrollers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241279 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-07-14 02:39 EST ------- (In reply to comment #13) > (In reply to comment #9) > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines > > - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. > > --> hmm... discuss? (see rpmlint output) > > > > - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. > > --> hmm... discuss? (see rpmlint output) > > > > Possible solution: split out -devel package and have avr-libc require: > > avr-libc-devel? Or possibly just rename the package. > > > > As already explained in the mailinglist discussion, the guidelines or just plain > bogus in this (exceptional) case, just ignore them. The guidelines are not bogus on this subject. avr-libc's *.a's and *.h's are not host files, they are target files. The rpmlint warning is bogus. Also consider all packages of the avr-toolchain are devel packages. > > - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other > packages. > > --> BAD > > $ rpm -qf /usr/avr > > avr-binutils- 2.17-3.fc7.x86_64 > > avr-libc- 1.4.6-1.x86_64 > > > > Unfortunately the review checklist is a bit to short / simple when describing > this. see: >http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-a5931a7372c4a00065713430984fa5875513e6d4 > > For the full story, to quote it: "Another exception for directory ownership in > packages is when there is no clear dependency hierarchy. These dirs must be owned by all packages using them. Anything else is technically wrong. > Neither package depends on the other one. Exactly this is the point. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review