libraries missing on F22 and higher

[Sérgio Basto]

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
> Fedora.

What guideline that is not respected ? 

-- 
Sérgio M. B.