Am 07.11.2015 um 15:41 schrieb Michael Schwendt:
On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 13:20:03 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:Error: nothing provides rpm-libs(x86-64) = 4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23 needed0.rc1.5.fc23 ??? *sigh* My motivation to do package reviews is hurt a lot by bad examples like that. It's as if some people put a lot of effort into trying to ignore the packaging guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages => 0.5.fc1.fc23 is what it's supposed to be Why apply the pre-release versioning scheme, if another scheme works, too? This time even in the RPM package itself. Explain that to new packagers! All you can do is tell them that there are packaging guidelines and pitfalls, and that some people hate the guidelines.
Fedora 23 was *released* with rpm-4.13.0-0.rc1.3.fc23.x86_64.rpm http://mirror.onet.pl/pub/mirrors/fedora/linux/releases/23/Everything/x86_64/os/Packages/r/rpm-4.13.0-0.rc1.3.fc23.x86_64.rpmyour complaints have *nothing* to do with teh fact that DNF is constantly unable to deal with local packages, not only that ones, most of the time
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
