https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2065938 --- Comment #7 from Jani Juhani Sinervo <jani@xxxxxxxxxx> --- > Do you understand what is wrong here? My understanding is that those > should be provided by the chibi-scheme-devel package or there should > be a number suffix in those names, e.g. ast.so.0 > > But I must admit that it is outside of my scope so I mainly just hope > that you know what is going on here :-) This would usually be the case, but in this particular instance this is fine. This is due to the fact that, as fedora-review here says, they're in a private subdir under %_libdir, and they will not be in ld path. These unversioned files are needed, as they provide the C implementations for various necessary things, like for example the `(chibi ast)` and `(chibi crypto sha2)` modules, and these are needed at runtime even without having the -devel package installed. > If bundled, I guess we will have to mention MIT in the License field Done. These SRFI implementations are a part of the project proper, they were just imported from elsewhere and thus they have differing license terms. But nevertheless they're still necessary. > I guess you forgot to rebuild your SRPM package after updating the spec file? In this case it's just fedora-review not properly understanding how %autorelease and %autochangelog work. Basically when those macros are expanded, %autorelease computes the next available release number for a given version, while %autochangelog generates %changelog entries from distgit commit messages. This is harmless and expected behaviour. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2065938 _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
