Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783825 --- Comment #31 from Brendan Jones <brendan.jones.it@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-04-10 00:14:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #30) > On the other hand, my biggest concern was not the above scenario exactly. It is > not uncommon that Qt updates come with ABI incompatibility. In such > circumstances, the Fedora-KDE SIG works well-coordinated to rebuild all Qt > dependant packages. If you filter out the Qt dependency from suil, they will > not know about the existence of it. The suil maintainer (that will be you until > you give it up) will need to follow all the ABI related changes in the > underlying toolkit Qt and has to coordinate manually with the Qt updates at all > times. > A similar argument applies for gtk rebuilds (although admittedly I don't have > much experinence with gtk), or any other toolkit that will be supported by suil > in the future. Sure, understand that this is a real concern. > > Are you sure do you want to walk that road? Shall we ask this in the > Fedora-packaging list perhaps? What is so bad about dragging in the toolkits > (seriously)? Attached (part of) a discussion on IRC with #lv2. Sure, I understand what you are saying. Whilst both toolkits are *likely* to be present anyway I can also envision a scenario whereby this may not be the case (e.g. a remix on an embedded device) I could package without the requires, make a note of it in the spec file and revisit again if presented with a requirement to remove the unnecessary dependencies. Although it does irk me to go against upstream's recommendations -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review