https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2052939 --- Comment #5 from Petr Menšík <pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Interesting request of upstream author. I am not sure he meant that exact naming. I think he is influenced heavily by debian ways. I think the source package should still be called just fungw, just as is original source archive. I would make fungw-libs package to contain basic shared library. Then fungw binary package would become that metapackage, where fungw-libs would replace libfungw as requested by the author. It is not always prefixed with lib on fedora. I think author was talking more about package suffixes. His expectation matches how it is done on Debian. While we can use the same package names, I think that might not be necessary, because it does not match common practice on Fedora. And makes packaging extra complicated. Maybe you could ask author, whether libfungw prefix for binary package is required also on distributions, where lib prefix is not usually used for binary packages. I think the difference can be easily demonstrated on json-c packages: Debian: https://packages.debian.org/source/sid/json-c Fedora: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1886942 Some packages require specific prefix. For example python3 modules have to be named python3-something. This package has python3 subpackage, but I am not sure how it should be used. If it would be used by import fungw, the package name would have to be python3-fungw. It seems to me all those subpackages would cause multilib conflicts between i686 version and x86_64. libfungw-c.i386 and libfungw-c.x86_64 cannot be installed on the same machine. That is required for libraries. Is that puplug part required? Is it even used somewhere? Because it conflicts, it seems it should have be in separate subpackage, which would conflict with itself. Is there some example, how should this package be used from shell, lua or perl? It has many languages support, but I am uncertain how it should be used. It has python support, but I don't even know how to start with that. I think devel subpackage should not contain link /usr/lib64/libfungw.so.1, but just symlink /usr/lib64/libfungw.so -> libfungw.so.1. Which would link -lfungw to current version. It seems wrong way now. libfungw contains libfungw.so, but libfungw-devel contains just %{_libdir}/%{libname}.so.%{major}. devel should contain %{libname}.so, package with library should contain %{libname}.so.%{major}. This all seems quite complicated stuff. I think documentation and examples should have own BuildArch: noarch subpackage. I barely understand those examples, I think they would be very useful. But whole examples content should be marked as %doc. It should not be bundled in binary libraries. Either move it to devel or create doc subpackage. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2052939 _______________________________________________ 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
