https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949895
Honza Horak <hhorak(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |bkabrda(a)redhat.com
Flags| |needinfo?(bkabrda(a)redhat.co
| |m)
--- Comment #7 from Honza Horak <hhorak(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Jan Staněk from comment #6)
(In reply to Honza Horak from comment #5)
> - packaging header file /usr/include/python3.3m/bsddb3/bsddb.h is not
> necessary IMHO. Or is there any reason to do so?
It is probably not necessary, however it is installed by the upstream setup
script. Of course I can remove it, but since upstream decided to ship it, I
think it should stay there, to be as close to the upstream version as
possible.
Staying close to upstream is generally good approach, especially when speaking
about functionality/features. But I wouldn't take it too strict when speaking
about content of RPMs. Removing unneeded stuff from RPM payload is quite common
thing. Anyway, I'm not Python expert, but since no other module seems to do the
same, I'd say it is pointless:
$ repoquery --whatprovides --archlist='x86_64,noarch'
'*/usr/include/python3.3m/*.h'
python3-devel-0:3.3.2-6.fc19.x86_64
python3-libs-0:3.3.2-2.fc19.x86_64
python3-libs-0:3.3.2-6.fc19.x86_64
python3-devel-0:3.3.2-2.fc19.x86_64
python3-sip-devel-0:4.14.6-1.fc19.x86_64
However, let's ask Python guru, what he things about packaging
/usr/include/python3.3m/bsddb3/bsddb.h file. Slavku, can you express your POV?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hKEKI8eFUM&a=cc_unsubscribe