https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935650
Pavel Valena <pval...@redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pval...@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Pavel Valena <pval...@redhat.com> ---
Can we depend on versioned library "so file" instead? (That's the preferred way
of specifying dependencies AFAIK.)
Like in this commit:
https://github.com/fedora-distgit/rubygem-ffi-rzmq-core/commit/c0729fb1c3a2f4c5c225addfd3e07bb8de490f1b#diff-4fe66120347be998c33ea765bccd78806cd3ebf6cc7eafef37bf2841fabbb0ec
(Yes, we do want that, on purpose.)
As there's no binary extension,
```
BuildArch: noarch
```
we need to specify so arch-specific dependencies with richdeps (if libffi...).
On the upside, there's no need for the patch.
--
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
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
