Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 19:00:50 +0100, Patrice wrote:
There should be no foo-devel-static. But I am not sure that there is a need
to change the guideline since it doesn't mention the devel-static
possibility.
So, we should get rid of the six remaining -devel-static packages then.
One is in F12 "updates", btw. ;) One at RPM Fusion.
Though, without hanging around on IRC I still don't know whether I could
simply go ahead and fix the packages for F13 devel or if this would be
a case of filing tickets and waiting many months for a reaction.
I'd file the bugs, explain the problem, and include a short-ish timeline
in which you expect a response or will make the change yourself. I say
2 weeks, unless the maintainer has something listed on the Vacation wiki
page. Then, if the don't reply, they were warned, just do it and take
care of any deps.
My $0.02.
-J
But once again, I think that the guidelines are clear on that subject:
Well, I do too, but that's the theory only as I've found two review
requests that create the full set of libfoo, libfoo-static + virtual
libfoo-devel and libfoo-devel-static in libfoo-static.
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
-d. bowie
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
