On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 4:19 PM Nicolas Chauvet <kwiz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Le mar. 29 juin 2021 à 18:06, Sérgio Basto <ser...@serjux.com> a écrit : > > Only epel 8 is missing but we could ask for it .
> No we can't (at least not easily). Well, technically, the asking is easy :-) > As the lame package is in RHEL but > only the libs- and (devel) are distributed. > So we can't have it in EPEL easily. But as you say, actually getting it in is not easy (the same thing has happened with some other packages where RH distributed only part of the package with EL8). > Also having a lame binary is totally spurious. Which is why I would think that the entire Requires: lame should be entirely removed. While I have no doubt someone has written some external script that uses the lame binary, that does not make it a responsibility of the package to install it (and if it is already installed, it will (probably) get updated by the user during the normal course of events). If someone really believes it should remain in the spec, at least downgrade it to a Suggests (or Recommends) for EL8(+) and Fedora. _______________________________________________ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
