-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 12/27/2015 12:26 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Thursday, 24 December 2015 at 11:02, Antonio Trande wrote:
> On 12/24/2015 12:32 AM, S�rgio Basto wrote:
>> On Qua, 2015-12-23 at 22:20 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote:
>>> On 12/23/2015 09:51 PM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
>>>> 2015-12-22 20:31 GMT+01:00 Antonio Trande
>>>> <anto.trande(a)gmail.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>>:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> these libraries (and others probably) are not available yet
>>>> on Fedora 22 and devel branch. Please, require a rebuild
>>>> soon as possible:
>>>> faad2 libmpeg2 libdca twolame
>>>> All of them are actually available, please double check
>>>> your system.
>>>> Nicolas (kwizart)
>>> Hi Nicolas,
>>> are available as fc23 packages?
>> no , they are available as fc22 in F23
> Honestly, I don't understand how we can tolerate something like
> that, that is using on Fedora 23 some packages built on Fedora
> 22; is there not any dependency issue?
No. RPM doesn't care about disttag for dependencies unless you
actually specify a dependency using it, e.g.: Requires: foo =
As long as SONAMEs match (or actually, as long as Provides: match),
the dependencies are satisfied. There's nothing wrong with having
.fc22 packages in F23+ repos.
In 'faad2' case or some other case, yes for now.
How do you know if a .fc22 package works fine on Fedora 23 if you
Also, RPMFusion respects Fedora packaging guidelines or not? Are you
sure that in the meantime a package don't need any other changes like
License packaging, dependency between sub-packages, or any minor fixes?
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
GPG Key: 0x565E653C
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----