https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1870208
--- Comment #7 from Pavel Valena <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #4) > (In reply to Pavel Valena from comment #3) > > > * Wrong shebangs: > > > > Hmm. I've already fixed that (I've linked probably an earlier iteration of > > spec file by mistake). > > I admire your upstream convincing skills in this regard :) > > Otherwise LGTM => APPROVED I think it was luck. (In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #5) > (In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #2) > > BTW, I'd rather see requires such as 'libvips.so.42`, but they are not > > properly required [1]. > > And it turns out, there is way to do it according to RPM upstream [1]: > > ~~~ > Requires: (libvips.so.42()(64bit) if libc.so.6()(64bit)) > Requires: (libvips.so.42 if libc.so.6) > ~~~ > > Because this is Ruby package, we could possible use libruby.so instead. > > > [1]: > https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1344#issuecomment- > 681916527 Thanks of figuring this out! `libffi.so.6` seems like a good choice indeed. -- 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]
