--- Comment #83 from Jan Pokorný <jpoko...@redhat.com> ---
[the review shifts behind my back, not keen on fighting the mills,
I am not an unprofessional rational-processes-bending person, just
my responses and thank you for your work so far]
There's a misunderstanding, "%files -n libknet1-devel" comment should
stay where it was in 1.1.4.
I was asking for a new one to explain the interim character of extra
treatment of debug packages that shouldn't have been introduced in
Fedora context in the first place.
* * *
re [comment 77], I am not familiar with how the test suite is run
for kronosnet, an example command would be "make check".
Nice-to-have category, though, the comment already explains why it
is not so straightforward in this case to run the tests.
* * *
Thanks for dealing with lz4 issues.
Regarding "pkgconfig(openssl)" expression of dependencies, yes, they can
be versioned as well and/or can be combined with "Suggests" to prioritize
particular underlying package name should the conflict on such virtual
Depending on how compat packages are structured, the same "satisfied by
more packages" situation could occur also with the previous cryptical
select-by-header-file approach, so there's effectively no regression
in this comparison.
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@example.com
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org