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: Ice - The Internet Communications Engine (Object middleware) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234612 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-08-22 10:56 EST ------- (In reply to comment #31) > (In reply to comment #30) > > A: ruby-libs dependency > > For consistency (i.e. to avoid that this package is > > rebuild against ruby 1.9), IMO "BuildRequires: ruby-libs" > > should be replaced with "ruby(abi) = 1.8". > > You can't actually "BuildRequire: ruby(abi)" ... what I've got there right now > is consistent with my reading of the Ruby packaging guidelines > (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby). Yes. Currently Fedora ruby guideline does not have "BuildRequires: ruby(abi) = 1.8", however this is consistent with python, perl, .... etc and I think this is needed. Also another reviewer (who reviewed ruby module packages I maintain) asked me to do so. > > D. naming > > - Usually foo-devel package should have the corresponding > > package named foo. > > IMO -cxx-devel subpackage should just be named as > > "ice-devel". > > The thing is, the main ice package provides a large number of runtime files and > documentation, as well as a set of .so.* libraries (that the runtime files are > linked to). The c++-devel package adds two tools and a set of .h files and .so > links so that you can build Ice packages using c++ -- it is clearly a c++ > development package, not an overall "-devel" package. Please read http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2007-August/msg00532.html Actually * Most people expects that the development package of ice is named as ice-devel * And some people even think that splitting development packages are of no means. -- 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