https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324863
--- Comment #12 from Dridi Boukelmoune <dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com> --- > I've never got a 100% clear answer. (Perhaps there is none :-) I can share the dirty secrets of varnish ABI rules, but let's do that in a dedicated ticket against the varnish package when I have something ready to submit to you. Incidentally, I think many things can be simplified in the current spec, and I'm not fond of pulling pkg-varnish-cache in. Upstream doesn't follow our packaging guidelines and has recently reduced RPM packaging down to varnish and varnish-devel (which I don't disagree with). That incidentally dropped the -docs package that our guidelines recommend. I think Fedora packaging of Varnish should be independent of upstream's own packaging. > This last version of varnish-modules is built against varnish-5.0 That's a good point, I was the one who fixed varnish-modules so that vmod-xkey and vmod-softpurge would build against 5.0. I'm still against the aforementioned requires. Please be patient until I have time to submit something ;-) -- 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 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
