Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: quota https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226353 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus@xxxxxxx 2008-01-25 16:08 EST ------- (In reply to comment #16) > I get the impression that if quota-devel is made a virtual package, the real > package will never happen. Of course, the real quota-devel would require the > main package anyway, so anyone installing -devel wouldn't notice. There is no reason why a package containing solely /usr/include/rpcsvc/rquota.h /usr/include/rpcsvc/rquota.x should require the main package. Once again it is not a library API. > How would we move this header to the glibc package? Unless I misunderstand, > that sounds unnecessarily awkward. I'm more in favor of the virtual package route. Headers without library are better in glibc, when they describe rpc services. I guess this implies discussing with glibc people. Look at the files /usr/include/rpcsvc/*.x > I'd be ok with the virtual package, but my preference is still the -devel > subpackage. I guess I'm having a hard time understanding your objection to > that. Sure, it's an extra package, but it's the same SRPM, and no real extra > maintenance. It would reduce bloat for end users, and have negligible effect on > developers. It is not a devel header like other devel headers that describes an api. It describes rpc messages, and in my opinion the deserves specific treatement. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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