On Seg, 2015-12-28 at 17:46 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote:
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
What guideline that is not respected ?
Sérgio M. B.