https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #84 from Fabio Massimo Di Nitto <fdinitto(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Jan Pokorný from comment #83)
There's a misunderstanding, "%files -n libknet1-devel"
comment should
stay where it was in 1.1.4.
I was asking for a new one to explain the interim character of extra
treatment of debug packages that shouldn't have been introduced in
Fedora context in the first place.
this is already addressed in comment #80
* * *
re [comment 77], I am not familiar with how the test suite is run
for kronosnet, an example command would be "make check".
Nice-to-have category, though, the comment already explains why it
is not so straightforward in this case to run the tests.
executing the test is straight forward make check, but we comment it out for
safety.
* * *
Thanks for dealing with lz4 issues.
Regarding "pkgconfig(openssl)" expression of dependencies, yes, they can
be versioned as well and/or can be combined with "Suggests" to prioritize
particular underlying package name should the conflict on such virtual
provides arise:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:WeakDependencies#Real_life_example
Depending on how compat packages are structured, the same "satisfied by
more packages" situation could occur also with the previous cryptical
select-by-header-file approach, so there's effectively no regression
in this comparison.
We will just switch back to BuildRequires: package-name.
In context, upstream is also moving away from file based dependencies.
--
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