https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1813563
--- Comment #7 from Antonio T. (sagitter) <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Mattia Verga from comment #5) > > > - Please, create a devel subpackage and include an symbolic link > > `libpasraw.so` pointed to `libpasraw.so.1.1` > > The source code should generate/include header files too, and installed > > together the unversioned library. > > Ask to upstream. > Why? The package doesn't create an unversioned library and there's no need > for it or for a -devel subpackage. This library is born to be a `private library`; it has been separated by original software and it became a independent library now, must provide -devel files for other project which use it in buildtime/runtime. Althought, i don't understand yet what software really needs `libpasraw` among that ones released by upstream. > > > - Use the patch to not install anything under `share/doc/libpasraw`, use > > only %doc to mark the documentation files. > > > > - Linker flags are not used; use a patch like that attached and set the > > LDLAGS. > Thanks for the patch > > > - This package provides a library earlier included in `libpasastro-1.2.*`; > > i guess it's better this way: > > > > new `libpasastro = 1.3.0-1` must > > > > BuildRequires: libpasraw-devel >= 0:1.3.0-1 > > Requires: libpasraw%{?_isa} >= 0:1.3.0-1 > > > > meanwhile, `libpasraw = 1.3.0-1` will be always installed because needed by > > new `libpasastro >= 1.3.0-1`, > > so it won't be ever **in conflict** with `libpasastro < 1.3.0-1` because > > they're never installed at the same time. > I don't see the rationale for this. We have a packaging guideline that > covers this case: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Conflicts/ > #_splitting_packages > If the new package should be installable independently of whether the > original package is installed, a versioned conflict is allowed It's true; but the original package (libpasastro), when updated, will not be in conflict anymore with `libpasraw`. Since libpasastro-1.3.0 and libpasraw-1.3.0 RPMs will be released together, i presume, then the conflict `libpasatro-1.2* vs libpasraw-1.3.0` never exists. -- 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] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
