--- Comment #3 from Andreas Thienemann <andreas(a)bawue.net> 2009-04-28 13:51:00 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I'd suggest using 070518 as Version rather than 0.0.0.070518, for
1. That's really the version upstream uses. They don't use any 0.0.0. And it
doesn't look like they're planning to use another versioning scheme any time
Interestingly the source code itself contains a 0.1 version identifier.
Thus the 0.0.0.070518 version just to be able to raise it if the need arrises
without using an epoch. (even if epoch is not as bad as some people claim it to
2. Fabrice Bellet (the rpmfind.net
admin (not to be confused with
Bellard, the QEMU guy)) has libtxc_dxtn packages with Version set to 050908, so
0.0.0.x versioning breaks upgrade paths from that repo.
Yeah. That is a more acceptable reason than 1.
Thus I'd see on problem to possible change the version id, but this shouldn't
prevent a review and could be changed during import anyway.
(In reply to comment #2)
As for the "no-soname" warning, it can be ignored, this is
a plugin, it's
designed to be dlopened only, never linked, so it doesn't make sense to
I concur with that. The current user of this library is Mesa. It could
potentially be the case that another piece of software is linking directly
against the library, but I've not known of any such program.
If this should be the case, one could always consider hacking in a soname
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.