From 1be510f9529cb082f802408b472a77d074b394c0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicolas Vigier Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:46:12 +0000 Subject: Add zarb MLs html archives --- zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-July/006593.html | 199 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 199 insertions(+) create mode 100644 zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-July/006593.html (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-July/006593.html') diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-July/006593.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-July/006593.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..6e9a87784 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-July/006593.html @@ -0,0 +1,199 @@ + + + + [Mageia-dev] Generic 64-bit building question + + + + + + + + + +

[Mageia-dev] Generic 64-bit building question

+ Radu-Cristian FOTESCU + beranger5ca at yahoo.ca +
+ Wed Jul 13 11:35:36 CEST 2011 +

+
+ +
+
+> That's why there was discussion started, some time ago, in this list, to 
+> create devel packages so that they will provide %{name}-devel and 
+> lib%{name}-deve.
+> 
+> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.mageia.devel/6365
+
+It isn't clear to me whether the situation to be fixed is Mageia-specific or the inconsistency shows up also in Fedora, openSUSE, etc.
+I thought it was about a small number of some peculiar libs, but it looks like it's a more generic issue.
+
+>>  Moreover, excuse me, but I find it stupid to have a 64-bit lib called 
+> `libksane-devel`.
+> This is devel package, not library itself, so it's OK.
+
+I must admit I failed to understand your statement.
+
+What's the difference between:
+`libksane-devel` <<-- correct 64-bit name
+and
+`lib64djvulibre-devel` <<-- correct 64-bit name
+?
+
+Why not `lib64ksane-devel` ?
+
+
+Thanks,
+
+R-C aka beranger
+
+
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+

+ +
+More information about the Mageia-dev +mailing list
+ -- cgit v1.2.1