https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098820 --- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> --- > Version: 20U1 The documentation in the tarball says "Version 2.0 Update 1" from Aug 2011. If Fedora's post-release versioning scheme were used, %version could really become "2.0". https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_packages If the next release will become "2.1", one can only hope that they will stick to their versioning scheme and call it "21", since "20U1 > 2.1" already. > %package devel > Requires: idfpml = %{version}-%{release} https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package > # Create pkgconfig files for all library variants > mkdir pkgconfig > cd pkgconfig > for ubf in 0 1 > … > cat <<EOF >idfpml$cbr$gr$gf$ubfc.pc > … With all due respect, but this is insane. You are adding to the API here. Typically, developers eventually will start supporting such pkgconfig files under the assumption that those are provided by upstream. As long as the files are specific to Fedora, that results in incompatibilities. Adding basic non-versioned pkgconfig files is okay if those will be merged upstream. Adding lots of idfpml$cbr$gr$gf$ubfc.pc files is too much IMO. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Staying_close_to_upstream_projects > %post -p /sbin/ldconfig > > %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig That's a no-op so far, because the shared lib is not installed in runtime linker's search path: > %files > … > %{_libdir}/idfpml/libbid*.so.* -- 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