https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1955394 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(ngompa13@xxxxxxxx | |m) --- Comment #13 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- > When they *aren't* split out, we get a number of cases where this treatment gets inconsistently applied, which causes bugs for installations and upgrades as packages can appear and disappear randomly when repositories are updated. Interesting. I’ve always been a little confused by how multilib filtering actually happens. It seems like the problem you describe applies only to libraries, like this one, that are potentially for use by other packages, rather than those only intended to support an associated executable. Would you agree? Perhaps this rationale should be added to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_mixed_use_packages. Technically it does cover your recommendation, but I think the existing rationale in the Guidelines for splitting libraries and applications into subpackages is pretty weak for packages where either the library or application part is very small. -- 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
