Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: compat-vips - compatibility version of VIPS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239233 bugzilla@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-06-27 22:05 EST ------- Is a compat-vips package really necessary. Every package I see that requires either of the libraries provided by the vips package seems to have exactly the same version string: vips-devel-0:7.12.0-1.fc8.i386 vips-tools-0:7.12.0-1.fc8.i386 vips-python-0:7.12.0-1.fc8.i386 nip2-0:7.12.0-1.fc8.i386 vips-0:7.12.0-1.fc8.i386 BTW, I note the following from rpmlint: W: compat-vips unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libvips.so.10.8.5 /usr/lib64/libWand.so.10 W: compat-vips unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libvips.so.10.8.5 /lib64/libz.so.1 W: compat-vips unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libvips.so.10.8.5 /lib64/librt.so.1 W: compat-vips unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libvips.so.10.8.5 /lib64/libdl.so.2 These are generally just inefficiencies, but libWand is 800K, which is a bit large for an unused library dependency. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review