On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 11:23:27AM -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Tuesday 23 January 2007 08:29, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > There's no reason that they should. With careful packaging it's possible > > to have libraries (i.e. the only binaries that need to be multilib'd) > > in separate packages. > > So lets see some sustainable examples. OpenIPMI (this one has packaging bugs, like .pc file(s) in -libs), audit, bind, file and so on. Curiously enough, all of these have static libs packaged in -devel, which - according to current packaging guidelines - is a review blocker. Regards, -- Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <rathann*at*icm.edu.pl> Interdisciplinary Centre for Mathematical and Computational Modelling Warsaw University | http://www.icm.edu.pl | tel. +48 (22) 5540810 -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list