https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771252 --- Comment #54 from Eric Smith <eric@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- > Sorry but this is wrong, the unversioned .so belongs in the main package. [...] > gnome-shell has the unversioned .so as well! Is it the case that /usr/lib/cinnamon/libcinnamon.so is not used by anything other than cinnamon itself? If so, then my interpretation of the packaging guidelines for devel packages is that the unversioned .so is OK in a non-devel package. Otherwise, without knowing why there should be an exception to a MUST item in a package review, beyond that another Fedora package does it, I wouldn't feel qualified to sign off on an exception. As far as I can tell, the original package review of gnome-shell (bug #516654) did not address this requirement at all. I do see that the explicit library dependency on librsvg2(x86-32) was approved for gnome-shell, and that exception seems to be justified for cinnamon also. > Are you reviewing the latest srpm? because that file doesn't exist! Yes, I ran fedora-review on the SRPM you provided for 1.4.0-2.UP1, and that was reported. I'll check it manually. > I will version the patches, as for using the -b flag, > no it causes crap like this I use -b in all my packages, and have never once seen it cause a backup-file-in-package problem. Perhaps that's because I generally avoid wildcards without extensions (or whole directories) in the %files ection. However, that was only a suggestion so you're free to ignore it. -- 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