--- Comment #72 from Fabio Massimo Di Nitto <> ---
(In reply to Jan Pokorný from comment #71)
> Ok, the same argument can be applied to implicit versioning of
> subpackages (BuildRequires: libknet-devel%{?_isa} < 2.0), why
> do you want to treat these two things (subpackages and respective
> pkgconfig files) differently, especially (to repeat it) if it's
> customary for the latter even when some packages (dbus) do
> explicit versioning for the former in addition (dbus-1.pc while
> avoiding dbus1-devel as the name of a subpackage)?
> Am I the only to see a conflict here?

I honestly don´t see the problem. One is upstream way to express versioning and
one is packaging. Each distro has its own similar but different ways to handle

> Will hypothetical libknet2 ship its standalone libknet2.pc?

No, it will ship libknet.pc, I don´t want or expect that v1 or v2 can be
co-installed or co-exist in the same system.

> Why not to apply unified approach and rename libknet.pc to
> libknet1.pc.  Or conversely, to stop the explicit versioning
> in the subpackage names in there's ever to be just a single
> pkgconfig file...

I already explain why the libknet1 should have the number there to express
protocol version being installed/used in that build.

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 --
To unsubscribe send an email to

Reply via email to