https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935650 --- Comment #2 from Jarek Prokop <jprokop@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Pavel Valena from comment #1) > Can we depend on versioned library "so file" instead? (That's the preferred > way of specifying dependencies AFAIK.) > > Like in this commit: > https://github.com/fedora-distgit/rubygem-ffi-rzmq-core/commit/ > c0729fb1c3a2f4c5c225addfd3e07bb8de490f1b#diff- > 4fe66120347be998c33ea765bccd78806cd3ebf6cc7eafef37bf2841fabbb0ec > (Yes, we do want that, on purpose.) Yes, you are right, depending on libzmq.so.5 like that does what we want. > > As there's no binary extension, > ``` > BuildArch: noarch > ``` Yes, that is specified correctly. > we need to specify so arch-specific dependencies with richdeps (if > libffi...). On the upside, there's no need for the patch. There is because the library is using hardcoded to search for `libzmq.so`[0] which is only in the `zeromq-devel` and that package pulls in many unnecessary devel dependencies (and libzmq.so is not present not even via symlink in the bare `zeromq` package). [0] the line gets expanded into `libzmq.so` specifically, so if we require `libzmq.so.5` in spec it would pull in zeromq, but it would not work. [0] https://github.com/chuckremes/ffi-rzmq-core/blob/master/lib/ffi-rzmq-core/libzmq.rb#L39 -- 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
