[Fedora-packaging] Update on packages violating the Static Library guidelines

[Till Maas]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 01:01:15PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:

> Does anyone else like to add something?
> 
> I've slept about this, and I'm starting to feel bad. If the autoqa guys
> had blogged about such a test for static lib packaging, I'm sure there
> would be a lobby who praises them.

I think the your work is good and helpful.

> This check of whether static libs are packaged correctly is automated,
> including the tracking and closing of bugzilla tickets. In my opinion the
> guidelines are clear [1], I've been responsive to answer early questions.
> But apparently it's too easy to slam a door and hide somewhere. "binutils"
> is not the only troublemaker. "e2fsprogs" has been reported two months ago
> without a response.

I understand the frustration this ignorance causes, but I guess this
behaviour is a generic human problem, that probably every community of
a certain size have to live with eventually.

Regards
Till
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20100211/f98754ea/attachment.bin