Re: libraries missing on F22 and higher

On 12/28/2015 01:30 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Dom, 2015-12-27 at 11:51 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote: > > 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? > > Is the power of RPM , if fulfill all requires of package it works > (rpm -q --requires package) > > For example Mosaic-2.7-0.3.b5.fc11.x86_64 still works on Fedora 23 > , but is a FTBFS since F12 or 13 . So fail to build is not > equivalent to fail to run . > Works but surely does not respect anymore all Packaging guidelines of Fedora.