https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1700559 --- Comment #2 from Lyude <lyude@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Adam Jackson from comment #1) > > Provides: xorg-x11-drv-intel-devel intel-gpu-tools > > Obsoletes: xorg-x11-drv-intel-devel intel-gpu-tools > > These should be versioned, in the unlikely event we ever reintroduce > packages with those names. Something like: > > %define provobs_version 2.99.917-42 > Provides: xorg-x11-drv-intel-devel = %{provobs_version} > Obsoletes: xorg-x11-drv-intel-devel < %{provobs_version} > # same for intel-gpu-tools > > I picked -42 here to be newer than the current intel driver version. > > > %description > > igt-gpu-tools (formally known as intel-gpu-tools) is the standard for writing > > test cases for DRM drivers. It also includes a handful of useful tools for > > various drivers, such as Intel's GPU tools for i915. > > "formally" should probably be "formerly" here. > > > %{_libdir}/intel_aubdump.so > > %{_libdir}/libigt.so > > %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/intel-gen4asm.pc > > It's probably overkill to split these out to a devel subpackage since I don't > really expect any external projects to use them. However, Fedora really > prefers > that real DSOs (not -devel symlinks, and not dlopen-only things like DRI > drivers) be versioned, even if it's libblah.so.0. Would be good to push that > upstream if you can. Debian has a similar policy so this isn't just Fedora > being weird. All changes made and relevant patches submitted upstream - just check the URLs I posted before again -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
