Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: bzip2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225633 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 18:23 EST ------- (In reply to comment #23) > The version which is in fedora now is right - if there will be any change then > there would be necessary to rebuild all dependencies. I'm not sure why was > this > change done (it was about 6 years ago), but it is ok. > This problem should not be a subject of review. Indeed it should. The reverse is right. Letting pass that item without discussing it wouldn't be right. This is not a hard blocker, indeed. It is much too late to change it, indeed, if it has to be changed it should be changed right after fedora 7 is released. Also it could be decided not to change it, but use the upstream soname versionning if there is a new soname. Still this issue is not clear to me. Do you have an idea about what would be best (use libbz2.so.1 as soname or libbz2.so.1.0)? It seems right to me not to change the soname, but this issue should be settled down now such that it is easy to do the right thing when the soname is changed upstream, and a comment should be added in the spec to explain everything and give guidance for the future. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
