-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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
>>> On 12/27/2015 01:11 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>>>>> Also, RPMFusion respects Fedora packaging guidelines or
>>>> 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
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
GPG Key: 0x565E653C
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----