https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103 --- Comment #72 from Fabio Massimo Di Nitto <fdinitto@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jan Pokorný from comment #71) > Ok, the same argument can be applied to implicit versioning of > subpackages (BuildRequires: libknet-devel%{?_isa} < 2.0), why > do you want to treat these two things (subpackages and respective > pkgconfig files) differently, especially (to repeat it) if it's > customary for the latter even when some packages (dbus) do > explicit versioning for the former in addition (dbus-1.pc while > avoiding dbus1-devel as the name of a subpackage)? > > Am I the only to see a conflict here? I honestly don´t see the problem. One is upstream way to express versioning and one is packaging. Each distro has its own similar but different ways to handle it. > > Will hypothetical libknet2 ship its standalone libknet2.pc? No, it will ship libknet.pc, I don´t want or expect that v1 or v2 can be co-installed or co-exist in the same system. > Why not to apply unified approach and rename libknet.pc to > libknet1.pc. Or conversely, to stop the explicit versioning > in the subpackage names in there's ever to be just a single > pkgconfig file... I already explain why the libknet1 should have the number there to express protocol version being installed/used in that build. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
