--- Comment #83 from Jan Pokorný <> ---
[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
provides arise:

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 --
To unsubscribe send an email to

Reply via email to