https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257 Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #19 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> --- > Do you think we should adopt their patches or can we stay with cmake? For building fparser, it doesn't matter. Use what works for you. ;) For the fparser-devel package contents, including a pkgconfig file would add some convenience for developers, who don't use CMake and don't want to use fparser as a copylib. Personally, I don't know whether it is worthwhile to maintain the >43 KB patch for cmake support. > the symlink libfparser.so -> libfparser-4.5.so It's correct. The libfparser.so file makes -lfparser work when compiling/linking. But the new package release has removed the library SONAME. See output from "fedora-review -b 1069257" in case you haven't tried out that tool before. $ rpmlint SRPM/fparser-4.5.1-4.fc20.src.rpm x86_64/* fparser.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libfparser-4.5.so If you feel confident about fixing this in dist git, go ahead. The spec file meets Fedora's requirements for a basic library package. There's a typo in the last %changelog entry, btw. APPROVED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review