minimal requirements for subpackage named common

[Adam Williamson]

On Tue, 2015-04-28 at 15:15 +0200, Jan Chaloupka wrote:

> Is there a minimum requirement what should a common package provide
> or 
> is it just arbitrary?

There's no real requirement. Personally 'common' is the name I'd most
likely expect, with one proviso; I kinda expect a package named
'common' to be basically useless on its own, and exist *solely* for
this purpose (to provide resources shared between two other packages).
If the shared package contains enough stuff to actually be useful in
some way on its own, I'd probably expect it to have another name, like
'core'.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net