https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1982306 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Ruzicka <jakub.ruzicka@xxxxxx> --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #9) > If you wish to proceed with libyang2 instead of upgrading libyang, then the > patch applied on the libyang spec file is more or less what I expect to see. After due consideration I still slightly prefer libyang2 as opposed to libyang upgrade to v2 because: * v1 and v2 are API incompatible - packages depending on libyang would break upon upgrade * no changes needed on future v3 etc. - requires will already be version-explicit * Debian maintainer expressed intent to also use libyang2 so having consistency across distros is a nice bonus for users I've aligned my .spec with the Fedora libyang distgit (which you updated to modern standards - thanks!) as much as possible effectively arriving at equivalent of the patch you kindly provided with few tiny changes, notably: * removed confusing arch-independent builddir - docs seem to build fine without it now * added libyang2-tools Provides: libyang-tools = %{version}-%{release} - does this make sense to replace legacy libyang-tools after the subpackage is removed from libyang1? Just an idea... Spec URL: https://jruzicka.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/libyang2.spec -- 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
