Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: avr-libc - C library for use with GCC on Atmel AVR
microcontrollers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241279
------- Additional Comments From rc040203(a)freenet.de 2007-07-14 02:39 EST -------
(In reply to comment #13)
> - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
> --> hmm... discuss? (see rpmlint output)
>
> - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
> --> hmm... discuss? (see rpmlint output)
>
> Possible solution: split out -devel package and have avr-libc require:
> avr-libc-devel? Or possibly just rename the package.
>
As already explained in the mailinglist discussion, the guidelines or just plain
bogus in this (exceptional) case, just ignore them.
The guidelines are not bogus on
this subject.
avr-libc's *.a's and *.h's are not host files, they are target files.
The rpmlint warning is bogus.
Also consider all packages of the avr-toolchain are devel packages.
> - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned
by other
packages.
> --> BAD
> $ rpm -qf /usr/avr
> avr-binutils- 2.17-3.fc7.x86_64
> avr-libc- 1.4.6-1.x86_64
>
Unfortunately the review checklist is a bit to short / simple when describing
this. see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-a5931a7372c4a0006...
For the full story, to quote it: "Another exception for directory ownership in
packages is when there is no clear dependency hierarchy.
These dirs must be owned
by all packages using them. Anything else is
technically wrong.
Neither package depends on the other one.
Exactly this is the point.
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.