https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2065938
--- Comment #7 from Jani Juhani Sinervo <jani(a)sinervo.fi> ---
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