"Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 00:30 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote: >> Assuming that 3. is indeed the way to go (and that seems right to me), >> shouldn't rpmbuild actually be fixed to enforce this? > No, because 3 isn't always true, and rpm has no way of knowing what a > -libs package means. I agree. This is very probably good as a standard policy recommendation, but it's a long way from there to a "no exceptions" policy. The bottom line as far as I can tell is that enforcing same-release match for subpackages of an RPM is a good idea when you don't want to think very hard about the compatibility implications of a mixed-release situation. If a package maintainer *is* willing to think hard, we should allow him to do that. regards, tom lane -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
