https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174408 --- Comment #13 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> --- All plugin lib subpackages except -crypto depend on libbd_crypto.so.0 (subpackage -utils). A similar thing for the -devel subpackages and -utils-devel. They include <utils.h>. That makes splitting off the -utils and -utils-devel packages a questionable decision. src/lib/blockdev.c also doesn't list the -utils lib as a plugin! Explicit review and confirmation that the plugin libs are loaded via name.so.$MAJOR_VER and not just name.so would have been very good. > %files devel > %{_libdir}/libblockdev.so > %{_includedir}/blockdev/blockdev.h > %{_includedir}/blockdev/plugins.h > … Directory /usr/include/blockdev is not included anywhere. $ repoquery --whatprovides /usr/include/blockdev $ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories > %package lvm-devel > Summary: Development files for the libblockdev-lvm plugin/library > Requires: %{name}-lvm%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} > Requires: %{name}-utils-devel Better would have been to add %{?_isa} also to the -utils-devel Requires. Especially the linking step would need the arch-specific .so lib to be found. -- 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