Re: libraries missing on F22 and higher
-----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-----