Clarify devel package guideline so that people don't package plugins in a -devel subpackage.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Devel_Packages%28draft%29
Here's my draft: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/Devel_Packages_Draft
Replying to [comment:1 spot]:
+1 Reasonable. I wish it were more concise, but I don't see a way to do that and keep the needed content.
+1 (another incremental improvement over the status-quo)
What are we going to stick in the ReviewGuidelines?
How about we simply replace:
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19]
with
MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package. [19]
Where the new citation (19) points to the updated guidelines section.
That would be my favourite approach, except that it's two different guidelines in the ReviewGuidelines that refer to [19] and should be replaced. It's the combination of these two that increases the confusion: {{{
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [19] }}}
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [19] }}}
Seems sensible to replace them both with:
If we're asked to clarify adn revise this further in the future, we might add the definitions from the linux doc project. See "shared Library names" http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Program-Library-HOWTO/shared-libraries.html#AEN49
Draft approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0)
Announce Text:
The Devel Packages section of the Packaging Guidelines has been rewritten to be more comprehensive and clear:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages
In addition, the ReviewGuidelines have been simplified to state simply that Development files must be in a -devel package.
Metadata Update from @toshio: - Issue assigned to spot
Login to comment on this ticket.