On Wed, 13 May 2009 23:08:39 +0100, Richard wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 03:27:42PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > Someone could easily do the same thing in future. If broken > > dependencies are so unacceptable, then it should be added to the > > packaging guidelines. > > I added this as an agenda item for the FESCo meeting: > > https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/147 > "Meeting agenda item: No broken dependencies should be a packaging guideline" > Am I reading your EPEL 5 libguestfs package changelog right? You've created the same broken dep also for EPEL 5. And in response to this thread you have released malfunctioning software instead? %changelog +* Wed May 13 2009 Richard Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> - 1.0.23-9 +- Remove the runtime requires on non-existant package. It'll just fail + instead. Btw, the F-10 update would have had a higher %release than the F-11 update (1.0.21-4.fc10 > 1.0.21-3.fc11). -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
