Nathan Scott wrote:
----- "Eric Sandeen" <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
or is *that* the policy?
I don't think Fedora would dictate that. Nathan, what is the reason
Its required by Debian Policy.
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html
hmm. I went searching for the equivalent Fedora policy documentation
and found the following, which basically just says to split it out
into base, -devel and -debuginfo packages :
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Debuginfo_packages
Also found the procedure for getting a proposal reviewed as the first
step in getting a project included in Fedora :
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process
We'd also want to move those files into the build directory since
they'd no longer be just for debian.
aren't those unique to the debian packaging procedures?
I think Mark was saying those files that contains lists of files
could be used elsewhere in the build to ensure all packages have
consistent contents.
yes that's correct. Looks like Fedora would only require that we
split pcp into pcp and pcp-devel (with pcp-debuginfo as a by-product).
If we do this, we can still utilize the Debian package lists, but
just combine some of them to arrive at a suitable pcp and pcp-devel
split.
So, should we split the pcp RPM packaging into pcp and pcp-devel?
Ditto for pcp-gui?
Cheers
-- Mark
|