https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953633 --- Comment #12 from Mark Wielaard <mjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Neal, (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #10) > If you expect *users* to use it, then make man pages and document it and fix > the weird ".sh" name for "find-debuginfo". Otherwise, move it to > "%{_libexecdir}/debugedit" and deal with making it available in "%{_bindir}" > later once you've sorted it out. (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #11) > To note, I specifically disagree with the premise that debugedit is > documented. It is not. However, *you are upstream*, so I can convey these > issues to you directly to resolve them. I do believe things are documented, just not with man pages, which I agree we should add for the 1.0 release. I understand your reasons for believing libexecdir/debugedit is a better choice than bindir. If you want my personal opinion then I believe bindir is the right place for now. You can try to convince me otherwise, but I am not the only upstream hackers and I think the discussion and decision where to install things should be made upstream. And if it changes upstream then I'll obviously change the spec to follow that. So, does that mean this is the only issue you see with the current spec? Thanks, Mark -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
