Re: libraries missing on F22 and higher

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:anto.trande@gmail.com>>: > > > > > > > > > > -----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  > > > > > (https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3821) as > > > > > 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 = > 1.1-2.fc23 > > 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 don't rebuild?

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?

Regards.