https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036395
--- Comment #3 from Arthur Bols <[email protected]> --- >Those version requirements come from odoc-parser.opam. The practice of >reflecting such version requirements in the BuildRequires is common in >Fedora's OCaml packages. The idea is that if we build for various Fedora or >EPEL releases, we don't have to check the version requirements every time, >because mock/dnf/rpmbuild will let us know immediately if they are not >satisfied. Please humor me; I would like to keep those version requirements >even though they are satisfied in all current Fedora versions. That's fine! > I guess readability is in the eye of the beholder. It seems readable to me > as it is (and again matches many other Fedora OCaml spec files). Forgive me, > but I wish to keep that as it is as well. Now I feel bad that I'm rejecting > all of your advice. But I think maintaining consistency with other OCaml > spec files is a good reason. Sounds like a good idea! And don't worry, I'm just following the guidelines, I understand packagers have different opinions and workflows. :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036395 _______________________________________________ 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
