-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 12/27/2015 09:04 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 01:48:23AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> On 12/27/2015 01:11 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote: >> >>>> Also, RPMFusion respects Fedora packaging guidelines or not? >>> >>> yes we do >> >> Aparently RPMFusion does not repect the FPG. Packages complying >> to the FPG are supposed to have been rebuilt for f23 and >> therefore to carry a package suffix of ".f23". > > Not really. There are often mass rebuild during Fedora > development, caused by various reasons: new GCC, change of default > compiler flags, hardening etc. But mass rebuild is not required > for every Fedora release. >
At last someone comprehends what I meant. Beyond .fc suffix (that could create confusion during Fedora upgrade however), here you're saying that RPMFusion packages must not be audited periodically, even for months, it's enough they work. I ask again, how can we know if a package .fc(x) compiles/works fine on Fedora(x+n) without a rebuild? - -- Antonio Trande mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter GPG Key: 0x565E653C Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWf8KsAAoJEF5tK7VWXmU8RLcH/igoXg+afHUXBY4SJVwL7VN5 6NIh73qWm63TnMOqeUh4lsVEEety1WoiYfyirDRD05H08SGZCfdv5/1hK4wsX0XP a19Ul1ZAdcxOnwPDlYgHMh27x2k6NYFCcRdyqaKavU4eUiJXjeLSpdREavy01cs2 axa1V7haS5CrWojDDkXiJgCAIwKzOS1OWuJxhM2y3gfZojJDJ4yhXAPoh9ECR3wc d8Jyxd7IpYT6R6GpkJg/xyJbIwb3AMPv2jPQuMLtFRPpG/geU9zwh9bLf0HPSlY+ wTLMFN1fxnJyKcB/q53ZNVNhakxTwwGr1Xr39+E9kMUyhbZhwNbK3KU2DMQ4gqw= =etVC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----