[Bug 618480] Review Request: EmfEngine - Library enabling Qt based applications to export graphics to the EMF format

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Aug 27 13:19:22 UTC 2010


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=618480

--- Comment #7 from Chen Lei <supercyper1 at gmail.com> 2010-08-27 09:19:21 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > (In reply to comment #4)
> > > (In reply to comment #3)
> > > > We should not add lib to the pkgname, see
> > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines#General_Naming
> > > It is doubtfull, but ok, it is not stop issue.
> > I'm sure we should not add lib to the name(e.g. glibc/qt/gtk).
> There are also many opposite examples: libsilc, libselinux-utils,
> http://www.silcnet.org/ and many others (rpm -qa 'lib*').
The tarballs for most lib* packages are also have lib prefix. Whether using lib
or not should depend on the tarball name or the upstream name.

> > All qtiplot specfic libs are under GPLv3, though the license header may be
> > GPLv2+/GPLv3+.
> > See http://soft.proindependent.com/serv/projects.html for a whole list
> Page contain only list of libraries it nothing say about licensing.
http://soft.proindependent.com/libqti/
http://soft.proindependent.com/qtexengine/licensing.html
http://soft.proindependent.com/liborigin2/

> > I think most -devel subpackage are arch-specfic because the location of
> > development libs(/usr/lib vs /usr/lib64).
> Hm, you are speak about unversioned *.so file(s)? May be... How it works till
> this time?
> Really, I'm not familiar in this question. Do you known when planning discuss
> about acceptance this draft?

%{?_isa} is only useful for broken repo, using arch specfic requires for lib
package should be prefered because of the existence of multilib.

See
rpm --eval %_isa

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.



More information about the package-review mailing list