https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1813563 Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #9 from Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Mattia Verga from comment #8) > I've asked on the packaging mailing list if this is really mandatory... > there are plenty of private libraries which don't provide their unversioned > copy in a -devel subpackage and I can't find anything that says so in the > guidelines. > The other projects from the same author also don't require this lib at build > time. /me puts on his FPC hat I don't think the argument that "it's just a private library used by some associated projects" counts here, since it's installed into %{_libdir} directly / publicly, and not into a "private" subdirectory of %{_libdir}. How are programs using this library? I assume they are dlopen()ing it, otherwise not having an unversioned .so or header files doesn't make any sense to me. -- 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
