https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935650
Pavel Valena <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] Flags| |needinfo?(denis.arnaud_fedo | |[email protected]) | |needinfo?(denis.arnaud_fedo | |[email protected]) --- Comment #4 from Pavel Valena <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Jarek Prokop from comment #2) > (In reply to Pavel Valena from comment #1) </snip> > > we need to specify so arch-specific dependencies with richdeps (if > > libffi...). On the upside, there's no need for the patch. > > There is because the library is using hardcoded to search for `libzmq.so`[0] > which is only in the `zeromq-devel` and that package pulls in many > unnecessary devel dependencies (and libzmq.so is not present not even via > symlink in the bare `zeromq` package). Ah, sorry, I didn't check the patch and thought it's doing something different. Yes, we don't want zeromq-devel. Isn't that a bug, though? Denis, could you comment, please? > > [0] the line gets expanded into `libzmq.so` specifically, so if we require > `libzmq.so.5` in spec it would pull in zeromq, but it would not work. Jarku, if it's a correct soname, can you create a PR upstream? > > > [0] > https://github.com/chuckremes/ffi-rzmq-core/blob/master/lib/ffi-rzmq-core/ > libzmq.rb#L39 -- 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] Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
