On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 15:46 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Do you happen to know if this was resolved?
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402582
> Thx
>
> Vít
>
I don't know if it has been resolved or not.
I had contacted upstream to get their feedback on it but have not heard
back fro
Do you happen to know if this was resolved?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402582
Thx
Vít
Dne 11.12.2017 v 11:26 Jason Taylor napsal(a):
> The latest version of colm was pushed to rawhide which bumped the soname.
>
> I didn't catch this prior to the push to give a proper heads
On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 06:23 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Fabio Valentini m> wrote:
> > "pro" .spec hack: This is why I hard-code library sonames in my
> > packages
> > (even if hardcoding is frowned upon in general, especially in .spec
> > files,
> > where macros are
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> "pro" .spec hack: This is why I hard-code library sonames in my packages
> (even if hardcoding is frowned upon in general, especially in .spec files,
> where macros are preferable) - but that way, a soname bump always gets
> noticed as it r
"pro" .spec hack: This is why I hard-code library sonames in my packages
(even if hardcoding is frowned upon in general, especially in .spec files,
where macros are preferable) - but that way, a soname bump always gets
noticed as it results in failed builds if the .spec file is not adapted,
and it
The latest version of colm was pushed to rawhide which bumped the soname.
I didn't catch this prior to the push to give a proper heads up so I
apologize for that.
I'll get a list of effected packages and notify the maintainers directly as
well.
JT
___
