https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123511 --- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> --- Yes, "libtool versioning" is this, http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Updating-version-info.html#Updating-version-info but while it is certainly possible to map the current:revision:age values into the release versioning scheme (e.g. 2:0:2 -> nanomsg-2.0.2), this has not been done here because the release is nanomsg-0.4-beta. So, RPM package %version = 0.4 does not match the version in the pkgconfig .pc file. This also affects RPM BuildRequires on pkgconfig files ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PkgConfigBuildRequires ), pkgconfig based queries (see "pkg-config --help|grep VERS") and .pc file inter-dependencies. I would have expected the nanonmsg release version to be the same as the .pc file version. Either 2.x.y or 0.x. With a leading 0 being better because it would match the SONAME version. [...] > turns out the --enable-debug did more than simply not strip the binaries. Good catch. That's one of the reasons why verbose build output can be helpful. > Any other issues seen with this package? >From "fedora-review -b 1123511": | nanomsg-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib False positive. | [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size | (~1MB) or number of files. | Note: Documentation size is 296960 bytes in 3 files. The currently small size of the -doc package makes it questionable. Just note that you are free to include those files in the -devel package. It could still be split off in the future in case the size would increase a lot. | [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. | Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in nanomsg- | utils , nanomsg-doc 1) It's good that a normal -doc package does not depend on the base library package. 2) For nanomsg-utils, it's debatable. Some packagers refuse to add a base package Requires to such subpackages, because the automatic SONAME dep is present already and sufficient for up-to-date installations. The only benefit of the base package Requires would be to make the dep more strict, i.e. installation of nanomsg-utils linked with API additions would strictly require the corresponding nanomsg base package. An older lib release with the same SONAME would not suffice due to missing the new symbols. [...] Have you thought about attempting at doing a few reviews? * http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/ * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group -- 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