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 .
Sérgio M. B.