https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1780885 --- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> --- FWIW, I consider the package design highly problematic. Both at the spec level and for the package users. The many libCutelyst2* subpackages packages don't contain plugins, but [!] system libraries. To make it worse, there are many automatic inter-dependencies in those subpackages, so the benefit of putting each lib into its own subpkg is minuscule or non-existant. Even the base program pulls in one of the subpackages, which in turn pulls in more subpackages. The -devel package pulls in all lib subpkgs. Over time, dependencies will change, libs will come and go, and the packaging maintenance requirements will be high. Also with regard to handling/removing obsolete subpackages. The spec file adds dependency bloat, which isn't arch-specific and therefore doesn't add much value: Requires: %{_pluginSession}%{_sonum} = %{version}-%{release} --> libCutelyst2Qt5Session.so.2()(64bit) libCutelyst2Qt5Session2 = 2.9.0-1.fc31 The first dep is automatic and arch-specific. The explicit dep from the spec file adds V-R but doesn't follow the base package guidelines and would be satisfied by the .i686 package due to multiarch repositories. The base package guidelines (for %_isa usage) should also be followed in other explicit "Requires:" tags that add deps on arch-specific packages, such as "uwsgi". Qt translation files would be found with %find_lang --with-qt --all-name The packaging should be simplified *a lot*. -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
