Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469808 --- Comment #19 from Till Maas <opensource@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-08 08:47:00 EDT --- (In reply to comment #18) > According to the Package Naming Conventions, shouldn't this package be named > pstreams instead of pstreams-devel? The dash is a separator which shouldn't be > used in the base name of the package. The naming guidelines demand that the dash[1] is used as a separator in the base name of packages and there are only some exceptions that allow to use the underscore instead. Also the review guidelines contain a MUST item that demands header files being in a -devel package: - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. Btw. debian also uses their devel naming scheme for pstreams: http://packages.debian.org/sid/libpstreams-dev > Of course, pstreams should then provide pstreams-devel = %{version}-%{release} What is the technical advantage of this? I would expect header files to be in a -devel package. [1] some examples: bitmap-fonts bodhi-client bridge-utils -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review