Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521909
--- Comment #5 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pahan@hubbitus.info 2009-09-24 08:27:09 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
Tabs aligned properly. Just you use another tab with (see first post).
I red your first comment and just wanted to encourage you to use "normal" tabs or 8 whitespaces. I guess this not a big problem but why do you want to go a different why than most of the other packages? In a very strict sense this may fell under https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines#cite_note-5
No "most of the other"!!! I tired say about it. There was discussion on this theme - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.extras.packaging/6214/focu... And accordingly it proposed draft guidelines change - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Tabs So, until it is not part Guidelines it can not be required.
Then why not write a patch and wrap it with a conditional for 64bit like you already mentioned? This would solve it.
Sed also solve problem. So, I have opposite question - why I should write additionally patch? And what of benefit of it over sed solution??
I'm not that familiar with this package but what does upstream say about this? Maybe they have the same problem?
No, they have-not. According to mail, he mention about /lib as symlink to /lib64. I don't known what system they use.
Since it is a library the example files may help developers to build against it. But again this is not a problem and I guess up to the packagers freedom.
Thanks. I think external package give more flexibility to user in any case.