https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103 --- Comment #83 from Jan Pokorný <jpokorny@xxxxxxxxxx> --- [the review shifts behind my back, not keen on fighting the mills, I am not an unprofessional rational-processes-bending person, just my responses and thank you for your work so far] There's a misunderstanding, "%files -n libknet1-devel" comment should stay where it was in 1.1.4. I was asking for a new one to explain the interim character of extra treatment of debug packages that shouldn't have been introduced in Fedora context in the first place. * * * re [comment 77], I am not familiar with how the test suite is run for kronosnet, an example command would be "make check". Nice-to-have category, though, the comment already explains why it is not so straightforward in this case to run the tests. * * * Thanks for dealing with lz4 issues. Regarding "pkgconfig(openssl)" expression of dependencies, yes, they can be versioned as well and/or can be combined with "Suggests" to prioritize particular underlying package name should the conflict on such virtual provides arise: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:WeakDependencies#Real_life_example Depending on how compat packages are structured, the same "satisfied by more packages" situation could occur also with the previous cryptical select-by-header-file approach, so there's effectively no regression in this comparison. -- 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
