https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324863
--- Comment #11 from Ingvar Hagelund <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Dridi Boukelmoune from comment #10) > I'm certainly against the varnish ABI dependency, I will submit a patch as > you requested. In the mean time please remove: > > Requires: varnishabi-5.0 Well, that certainly is interesting. I've been trying to get scn (upstream) to explain what how I can ensure compatibilty among versions of varnish and vmods, but I've never got a 100% clear answer. (Perhaps there is none :-) This last version of varnish-modules is built against varnish-5.0, and probably won't work with earlier versions. We could add a dependency fo varnish >= 5.0, but then, that may or may not add problems when/if varnish-5.1 or 6.0 is released. We could add a hard dependency on the exact varnish version, but that would require a recompile on minor releases, that may not be necessary. Using the varnish-abi version string seems a fairly reasonable choice to avoid these kinds of problems. So if that is wrong, I'm very interested in why. > For the virtual provides, I would add the %{release}-%{version} but it's not > a must in the packaging guidelines IIRC. > > Provides: vmod-cookie = %{release}-%{version} Yep, that's a good idea :-) br Ingvar -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
