https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972568
--- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng <cickumqt(a)gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #5)
Which would make sense. Just IMHO, and I recommend that for
library-less
-devel packages so they are like all other -devel packages. However, kindly
refer to bug 798438 comment 9. The FPC finds it acceptable, if library-less
development packages (no matter whether they contain only headers or also
tools) would not be named -devel but used the base package for including
their files. As such, building just uthash.noarch from uthash.src.rpm would
be okay, although enough packagers would prefer the uthash-devel.noarch
style.
Yes, I've seen this review before packaging uthash. I dislike packages only
named -devel, but no main package existed.
--
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=AnAx8znQHd&a=cc_unsubscribe