On Dom, 2015-12-27 at 00:48 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote: > On 12/27/2015 12:26 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > On Thursday, 24 December 2015 at 11:02, Antonio Trande wrote: > > > On 12/24/2015 12:32 AM, S�rgio Basto wrote: > > > > On Qua, 2015-12-23 at 22:20 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote: > > > > > On 12/23/2015 09:51 PM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > > > > > > 2015-12-22 20:31 GMT+01:00 Antonio Trande > > > > > > <anto.tra...@gmail.com <mailto:anto.tra...@gmail.com>>: > > > > > > > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > these libraries (and others probably) are not available yet > > > > > > on Fedora 22 and devel branch. Please, require a rebuild > > > > > > (https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3821) as > > > > > > soon as possible: > > > > > > > > > > > > faad2 libmpeg2 libdca twolame > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All of them are actually available, please double check > > > > > > your system. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nicolas (kwizart) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Nicolas, > > > > > > > > > > are available as fc23 packages? > > > > > > > > no , they are available as fc22 in F23 > > > > > > > > > > Honestly, I don't understand how we can tolerate something like > > > that, that is using on Fedora 23 some packages built on Fedora > > > 22; is there not any dependency issue? > > > > No. RPM doesn't care about disttag for dependencies unless you > > actually specify a dependency using it, e.g.: Requires: foo = > > 1.1-2.fc23 > > > > As long as SONAMEs match (or actually, as long as Provides: match), > > the dependencies are satisfied. There's nothing wrong with having > > .fc22 packages in F23+ repos. > > > > In 'faad2' case or some other case, yes for now. > How do you know if a .fc22 package works fine on Fedora 23 if you > don't rebuild?
Look at this link [1] for example Fedora 22 release , searching for fc21 , firefox says more than 100 , only in letter R [1] http://mirrors.eu.kernel.org/fedora/releases/22/Everything/source/SRPMS /r/ > Also, RPMFusion respects Fedora packaging guidelines or not? yes we do > Are you > sure that in the meantime a package don't need any other changes like > License packaging, dependency between sub-packages, or any minor > fixes? > Regards. > -- Sérgio M. B.
