https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933412 code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Looks pretty clean at first glance, except for a couple of things related to shared library versioning: Per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_downstream_so_name_versioning, you “must” to try to convince upstream to start doing versioned shared libraries before considering adding versions downstream. (Yeah, I know, it’s Google, good luck—but this upstream seems to have listened to similar kinds of requests in the past, like making versioned releases at all.) Maybe somebody already tried and I just could not find it… Per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files, you “should” explicitly put the so-version in the file globs rather than using “libfoo.so*”. (This seems less useful when you are versioning downstream, of course.) -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
