[Fedora-packaging] review cgilib issues
mschwendt at gmail.com
Mon Feb 16 21:36:07 UTC 2009
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:16:46 +0100, Dominik wrote:
> Unrelated to this, libcgi maintainer should not have chosen to use
> libcgi.so.1 as the soname without upstream's approval.
Not the first time this has happened. It's reviewer's responsibility
to not approve such packages.
Current guidelines disallow static libs, reviewers point that out,
packagers make up a soname and version, and reviewers accept it. Instead,
they ought to reject such packages and request involvement of upstream
developers in deciding on a soname and library versioning scheme.
More information about the Fedora-packaging