Loading...
Request History
gmbr3 created request
To be used by libavif
factory-auto added opensuse-review-team as a reviewer
Please review sources
factory-auto accepted review
Check script succeeded
licensedigger accepted review
ok
RBrownFactory added openSUSE:Factory:Staging:adi:50 as a reviewer
Being evaluated by staging project "openSUSE:Factory:Staging:adi:50"
RBrownFactory accepted review
Picked "openSUSE:Factory:Staging:adi:50"
RBrownSUSE accepted review
RBrownFactory approved review
Staging Project openSUSE:Factory:Staging:adi:50 got accepted.
RBrownFactory accepted review
Staging Project openSUSE:Factory:Staging:adi:50 got accepted.
RBrownFactory accepted request
Staging Project openSUSE:Factory:Staging:adi:50 got accepted.
I'm one of the packagers for nodejs-electron and signal-desktop packages which use this library.
The version scheme you picked is inconsistent with Fedora, making writing specfiles much harder. Could you adjust it?
No because this is correct
I'd say both are incorrect, this library seems to have a version number in the readme (1833 in our case)
Ah, i see. I have no idea where Fedora got “0.44” from, when the (rather old) version they ship calls itself “1766” in the readme.
Exactly. The pkgconfig file exposes the correct version (1833) here but not on Fedora.
Documentation can go out of date.
seems like the best match (because it's something that programs may choose to evaluate with or without a .pc file).