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 #20 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2008-11-08 09:14:38 EDT --- (In reply to comment #19) > (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: Right. > > 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. Well, the name confuses me a bit since I'd expect there to be a package named pstreams. Of course, one can add Provides: pstreams to pstreams-devel as well. > [1] some examples: > bitmap-fonts > bodhi-client > bridge-utils OK. Well, maybe it isn't as bad as I first thought: I find the following packages in F9 Everything SRPMS with names containing -devel: gnome-devel-docs sblim-cmpi-devel xorg-x11-proto-devel xorg-x11-xtrans-devel -- 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