https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176595 --- Comment #19 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- Oops, sorry, I missed your answer, until Antonio added his comment. I'll reply anyway, even though he's taking the review. (In reply to Dave Love from comment #17) > (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #16) > > A single Requires/Provides per line. > > Where's that documented? It's not required, but it's generally considered good practice. It's much more readable and diffs are much easier to read. Also, making things conditional between branches is easier. > > %doc is used for some license files. > > Thanks. > > > .so files would usually be named like libHYPRE.so.2.10.1 not > > libHYPRE-2.10.1.so. With the current naming, the number is part of the file > > name. > > See the comment in the spec file. That's kept in Debian and, I think, > OpenSuSE, and I didn't see anything prohibiting it when I checked. > > > I don't really know what the effect of this is. It will probably break > > linking against the library... Do you have any programs using the headers > > and libraries in -devel? > > Yes. This was done as a dependency of petsc and trilinos. > $ rpm -q --requires trilinos-openmpi|grep -i hypre > libHYPRE-2.10.1.so()(64bit) This means that the dependency is on this specific version of libHYPRE, i.e. exactly version 2.10.1. Normally, you only need a dependency on the first number (major version, 2 in this case), while the middle and final numbers can change [1]. In your case dependent packages will have to be recompiled whenever this version changes. Actually, according to the usual Fedora update rules [2], you wouldn't be allowed to change this number during the lifetime of a Fedora release, because user programs linked to this specific version would break also. [1] http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Program-Library-HOWTO/shared-libraries.html [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Philosophy All that said, doing this properly might be quite a bit of work, so in this specific case just keeping the broken upstream numbering might be an acceptable policy, if this package will mostly be used for the two dependent packages and you'll be controlling all three. -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx