--- Comment #84 from Fabio Massimo Di Nitto <fdini...@redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Jan Pokorný from comment #83)
> 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.
this is already addressed in comment #80
> * * *
> 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.
executing the test is straight forward make check, but we comment it out for
> * * *
> 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.
We will just switch back to BuildRequires: package-name.
In context, upstream is also moving away from file based dependencies.
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