https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098820
--- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael(a)gmx.net> ---
Version: 20U1
The documentation in the tarball says "Version 2.0 Update 1" from Aug 2011. If
Fedora's post-release versioning scheme were used, %version could really become
"2.0".
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_pa...
If the next release will become "2.1", one can only hope that they will stick
to their versioning scheme and call it "21", since "20U1 > 2.1"
already.
%package devel
Requires: idfpml = %{version}-%{release}
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
# Create pkgconfig files for all library variants
mkdir pkgconfig
cd pkgconfig
for ubf in 0 1
…
cat <<EOF >idfpml$cbr$gr$gf$ubfc.pc
…
With all due respect, but this is insane. You are adding to the API here.
Typically, developers eventually will start supporting such pkgconfig files
under the assumption that those are provided by upstream. As long as the files
are specific to Fedora, that results in incompatibilities. Adding basic
non-versioned pkgconfig files is okay if those will be merged upstream. Adding
lots of idfpml$cbr$gr$gf$ubfc.pc files is too much IMO.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Staying_close_to_upstream_projects
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
That's a no-op so far, because the shared lib is not installed in runtime
linker's search path:
%files
…
%{_libdir}/idfpml/libbid*.so.*
--
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