Bug 198131 - Review Request: glibmm
Review Request: glibmm
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Bill Nottingham
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2006-07-10 01:34 EDT by Kevin McBride
Modified: 2014-03-16 23:00 EDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2006-07-10 05:01:22 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Kevin McBride 2006-07-10 01:34:30 EDT
Spec URL: http://www.planetsaphire.com/rpms/glibmm/glibmm.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.planetsaphire.com/rpms/glibmm/SRPMS/2.10/2.10.4/glibmm-2.10.4-1.src.rpm 
Description: A C++ Wrapper for the GNU GLib, created by the GNOME developers.
Comment 1 Denis Leroy 2006-07-10 02:52:07 EDT
Hmm, it's already in extras! (gtkmm24)
Comment 2 Kevin McBride 2006-07-10 03:16:55 EDT
gtkmm24 != glibmm24 :)
However, glibmm24 was in there.  I guess my searching didn't notice the packages. :(

Although off-topic to this bug, I believe that the packages shouldn't have the
'24' suffix.  GNOME named the glibmm and gtkmm without the suffix, so why does
Red Hat add the suffix?
Comment 3 Denis Leroy 2006-07-10 04:05:40 EDT
Right, I meant glibmm24. There are about 8 packages, though they all fall under
the denomination of 'gtkmm' (gtkmm.sourceforge.net).

The 24 suffix represents the API version (as in
/usr/lib/pkgconfig/glibmm-2.4.pc, 2.10 is the ABI version) and is there mostly
for historical reasons since we used to also package the older 2.0 APIs. I agree
we could get rid of the 24 suffix now, I'm just not sure it's worth the trouble.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.