Rahul Sundaram (metherid@xxxxxxxxx) said: > On 08/01/2012 01:06 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > Well, that's really it. The format of LSB is a bit odd to a lay reader, > > but AFAICT, it really does mean: to be technically in compliance with > > LSB-desktop, you need to ship a libpng12.so.0 which provides the listed > > functions. End of story. I don't see a workaround. > > Fedora is not LSB compatible. Is it? Why do we even care about this at > all? If we are providing a redhat-lsb package that provides the requirements specified in the LSB, it should be correct. I can see assorted ways we could theoretically handle a desire to remove libpng 1.2 from the distribution, but merely dropping the req from redhat-lsb is the obviously wrong answer. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
